04-16-2003, 08:22 PM
While conversing with a couple of my US friends some days ago, I was asked a question which seems to be on the mind of many Americans, and which a lot of them really do not understand, and that is: Why is it that Europeans have turned so Anti-American?<br>
<br>
Since Jenny asked something similar on the other thread, I thought I'd do a cut and paste from our discussion to here. This is of course primarily the view from Scandinavia where I live, but from what one reads, it seems to be one that is shared by a good deal of other Europeans.<br>
<br>
Before I go any further, I'll apologize in advance if I you find anything in this post offensive. WHat I was trying to explain to my friends was why many Europeans have suddenly turned so antagonistic about Americans (even people who are pro-war). The comments here do not reflect my views about Americans, but rather what I think are the various views of Europeans (especially Scandinavians) about Americans and in particular the American government at this moment in time.<br>
<br>
I've also not addressed American grievances with Europeans, since that was not the focus of our discussion; besides by now I think I understand most of them.<br>
<br>
Now to the topic:<br>
Naturally, there has always been some friction in the trans-atlantic relationship; particular with respect to US "pop" culture. However, this friction has never been particularly serious - on a par with Danish "contempt" of German tourists, or Swedish contempt of the "stupid" Norwegians. The sort of thing you unavoidably get between good neighbours. The fact is that the US has always been as much admired as it has been reviled.<br>
<br>
So why the current - rather venomous - atmosphere?<br>
<br>
The funny thing - which some people seem to forget - is that the majority of the world was overwhelmingly PRO-American, less than 1 1/2 year ago. What happened to all that goodwill?<br>
<br>
Wasted. Squandered by a US administration which diplomatically has been a disaster with respect to the USA's world image.<br>
<br>
The classical worst-case stereotype of the American has always been that of the person who is arrogant, hypocritical, self-absorbed, and contemptuous of others. But it has always been just that - a stereotype - and nothing to be taken seriously.<br>
<br>
The problem for the USA's world image is that over the past 18 months, the Bush administration has succeeded admirably in portraying a perfect image of that stereotype.<br>
<br>
Arrogance:<br>
<br>
Bottom-line on the "War on Terror" is that - despite disagreements on certain diplomatic and political details - both Europe and the USA have common interests. The problem that Europe has with the USA is when Bush & Co go into "You're either with us or against us" mode. There seems to be a real inability for the US to accept that other approaches than the ones proposed by Americans can be both legitimate and acceptable. While it's fair to disagree, it's puerile to refuse to listen. And to most Europeans, it clear that the US hasn't bothered to listen.<br>
<br>
Hypocritical:<br>
<br>
One of the most stupid speeches (from a foreign affairs POV) that Bush committed was the "axis of evil" speech. Not only did it make him look simple to many Europeans, but it also lumped disparate opponents such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea together instead of dividing them.<br>
<br>
Bush's arguement for attacking Iraq is that he is uniquely bad, has slaughtered and oppressed thousands of his own people, has and is willing to use WMDs, has a track record of aggression against his neighbors, and wish to build nuclear weapons. Well, North Korea has starved and oppressed his own people, killed South Korean diplomats, kidnapped Japanese, has some thousands of artillery pieces all pointed at Seoul, has and are willing to use WMDs and is openly building nuclear weapons.<br>
<br>
If the US is willing to be diplomatic with North Korea, why not Iraq? That the US behaviour gets interpreted as rank hypocrisy, and many Europeans suspect the US of having ulterior motives with respect to Iraq can hardly come as any surprise.<br>
<br>
Self-absorbed:<br>
<br>
Just to name a few of the "charges" that one will hear from Europeans: the U.S. failure to back the Kyoto accords on global warming, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Landmine Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the International Criminal Court; all in the name of US self-interest.<br>
<br>
The bottom-line is that, due to the above factors, very few Europeans (including many who support the war) believe that the US is acting for anything other than its own selfish interests in Iraq. This viewpoint is certainly not weakened by the way in which the US has distributed lucrative contracts to companies with strong ties to government figures, ignoring even its loyal allies such as the British. The familiar - it's all about the Oil arguement may be rubbish - but the US administration hasn't tried very hard to disprove it.<br>
<br>
Contemptuous:<br>
<br>
Probably one of the most damaging acts the US has committed is in its blunders with the UN. Bush chose to go to the UN in deference to the wishes of his allies but then quickly made it clear that it would only respect a UN decision which ruled in its favor. The problem that arises when it became abundantly clear that not only was the US government not listening to what the rest of the world had to say, but that it was not even bothering to make the pretense of wanting to hear what it had to say, ought to be obvious to all.<br>
<br>
Stereotypes are not supposed to be true, and yet - to Europeans - the Bush administration seems intent on proving that this once, the stereotype does in fact exist.<br>
<br>
To add to those complaints, the Bush administration itself exacerbates the problem. Not least President Bush himself. Domestically, Bush represent many things that many Europeans find strange, if not directly repellent, about the US: pro-death penalty, pro-Gun, strongly Christian, anti-abortion, and strongly nationalistic (though especially the French can sign on that last one as well ). Particularly offensive to Europeans is Bush's swagger and invocations of God and Good and Evil - something that plays out well in the US, but which Europeans find decidedly medieval. To Europeans, identifying yourself with Good and your enemy with Evil belongs only with fanatics and fairy tales. Thanks to this rhetoric, some Europeans increasingly see not a war against terror, but a war between Christian Fundamentalism (represented by Bush) against Islamic Fundamentalism (represented by bin Laden).<br>
<br>
To further discredit the administration in European eyes is the juvenile way in which it reacted to opposition in Europe. Instead of trying to settle differences (the European way), the US administration proceeded to hurl abuse. Rather than restrain this behavior, Bush allowed this to go unchecked, with even his top-brass (most notably Rumsfeld) joining in. That this sort of behavior is stupid shouldn't need mentioning; as one analyst commented - each time Rumsfeld opened his mouth to insult Europe, it cost American tax payers another $20 billion. Probably the final confirmation (in European eyes) of mental immaturity was the change of name in "French Fries" and "French toast" to "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast". I won't speculate on what the opinion of the US public to this name change is, but the European opinion of it can only be described with one word: Childish.<br>
<br>
This is not to say (as some people seem to think) that the European governments and Europeans have not committed their diplomatic gaffes. One can be rightfully castigate the French for meddling in the food-for-oil programme and thus contributing to the current crisis. One can shake one's head at the diplomatic blunders and big mouths of prominent European ministers. One can particularly deplore an event such as the defacing of American war-time graves.<br>
<br>
It however does not change the sad fact that most of the anti-Americanism sentiment which sweeps Europe today could easily have been avoided. All it would have required would have been for certain members of the Bush administration to think before they speak, to tone down its "For us or against us" rhetoric and for the US to actually pretend to care what its allies thought. A little bit of humility to go with the strength.<br>
<br>
Strangely enough, this is an opinion that was once shared by a prominent person within the US administration, who commented on the best way to combat anti-Americanism:<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>
"It really depends on how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."<br>
<hr><br>
<br>
The speaker was George W. Bush.<br>
<br>
He was absolutely right, back then.<br>
<p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 4/17/03 12:18:23 am<br></i>
<br>
Since Jenny asked something similar on the other thread, I thought I'd do a cut and paste from our discussion to here. This is of course primarily the view from Scandinavia where I live, but from what one reads, it seems to be one that is shared by a good deal of other Europeans.<br>
<br>
Before I go any further, I'll apologize in advance if I you find anything in this post offensive. WHat I was trying to explain to my friends was why many Europeans have suddenly turned so antagonistic about Americans (even people who are pro-war). The comments here do not reflect my views about Americans, but rather what I think are the various views of Europeans (especially Scandinavians) about Americans and in particular the American government at this moment in time.<br>
<br>
I've also not addressed American grievances with Europeans, since that was not the focus of our discussion; besides by now I think I understand most of them.<br>
<br>
Now to the topic:<br>
Naturally, there has always been some friction in the trans-atlantic relationship; particular with respect to US "pop" culture. However, this friction has never been particularly serious - on a par with Danish "contempt" of German tourists, or Swedish contempt of the "stupid" Norwegians. The sort of thing you unavoidably get between good neighbours. The fact is that the US has always been as much admired as it has been reviled.<br>
<br>
So why the current - rather venomous - atmosphere?<br>
<br>
The funny thing - which some people seem to forget - is that the majority of the world was overwhelmingly PRO-American, less than 1 1/2 year ago. What happened to all that goodwill?<br>
<br>
Wasted. Squandered by a US administration which diplomatically has been a disaster with respect to the USA's world image.<br>
<br>
The classical worst-case stereotype of the American has always been that of the person who is arrogant, hypocritical, self-absorbed, and contemptuous of others. But it has always been just that - a stereotype - and nothing to be taken seriously.<br>
<br>
The problem for the USA's world image is that over the past 18 months, the Bush administration has succeeded admirably in portraying a perfect image of that stereotype.<br>
<br>
Arrogance:<br>
<br>
Bottom-line on the "War on Terror" is that - despite disagreements on certain diplomatic and political details - both Europe and the USA have common interests. The problem that Europe has with the USA is when Bush & Co go into "You're either with us or against us" mode. There seems to be a real inability for the US to accept that other approaches than the ones proposed by Americans can be both legitimate and acceptable. While it's fair to disagree, it's puerile to refuse to listen. And to most Europeans, it clear that the US hasn't bothered to listen.<br>
<br>
Hypocritical:<br>
<br>
One of the most stupid speeches (from a foreign affairs POV) that Bush committed was the "axis of evil" speech. Not only did it make him look simple to many Europeans, but it also lumped disparate opponents such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea together instead of dividing them.<br>
<br>
Bush's arguement for attacking Iraq is that he is uniquely bad, has slaughtered and oppressed thousands of his own people, has and is willing to use WMDs, has a track record of aggression against his neighbors, and wish to build nuclear weapons. Well, North Korea has starved and oppressed his own people, killed South Korean diplomats, kidnapped Japanese, has some thousands of artillery pieces all pointed at Seoul, has and are willing to use WMDs and is openly building nuclear weapons.<br>
<br>
If the US is willing to be diplomatic with North Korea, why not Iraq? That the US behaviour gets interpreted as rank hypocrisy, and many Europeans suspect the US of having ulterior motives with respect to Iraq can hardly come as any surprise.<br>
<br>
Self-absorbed:<br>
<br>
Just to name a few of the "charges" that one will hear from Europeans: the U.S. failure to back the Kyoto accords on global warming, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Landmine Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the International Criminal Court; all in the name of US self-interest.<br>
<br>
The bottom-line is that, due to the above factors, very few Europeans (including many who support the war) believe that the US is acting for anything other than its own selfish interests in Iraq. This viewpoint is certainly not weakened by the way in which the US has distributed lucrative contracts to companies with strong ties to government figures, ignoring even its loyal allies such as the British. The familiar - it's all about the Oil arguement may be rubbish - but the US administration hasn't tried very hard to disprove it.<br>
<br>
Contemptuous:<br>
<br>
Probably one of the most damaging acts the US has committed is in its blunders with the UN. Bush chose to go to the UN in deference to the wishes of his allies but then quickly made it clear that it would only respect a UN decision which ruled in its favor. The problem that arises when it became abundantly clear that not only was the US government not listening to what the rest of the world had to say, but that it was not even bothering to make the pretense of wanting to hear what it had to say, ought to be obvious to all.<br>
<br>
Stereotypes are not supposed to be true, and yet - to Europeans - the Bush administration seems intent on proving that this once, the stereotype does in fact exist.<br>
<br>
To add to those complaints, the Bush administration itself exacerbates the problem. Not least President Bush himself. Domestically, Bush represent many things that many Europeans find strange, if not directly repellent, about the US: pro-death penalty, pro-Gun, strongly Christian, anti-abortion, and strongly nationalistic (though especially the French can sign on that last one as well ). Particularly offensive to Europeans is Bush's swagger and invocations of God and Good and Evil - something that plays out well in the US, but which Europeans find decidedly medieval. To Europeans, identifying yourself with Good and your enemy with Evil belongs only with fanatics and fairy tales. Thanks to this rhetoric, some Europeans increasingly see not a war against terror, but a war between Christian Fundamentalism (represented by Bush) against Islamic Fundamentalism (represented by bin Laden).<br>
<br>
To further discredit the administration in European eyes is the juvenile way in which it reacted to opposition in Europe. Instead of trying to settle differences (the European way), the US administration proceeded to hurl abuse. Rather than restrain this behavior, Bush allowed this to go unchecked, with even his top-brass (most notably Rumsfeld) joining in. That this sort of behavior is stupid shouldn't need mentioning; as one analyst commented - each time Rumsfeld opened his mouth to insult Europe, it cost American tax payers another $20 billion. Probably the final confirmation (in European eyes) of mental immaturity was the change of name in "French Fries" and "French toast" to "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast". I won't speculate on what the opinion of the US public to this name change is, but the European opinion of it can only be described with one word: Childish.<br>
<br>
This is not to say (as some people seem to think) that the European governments and Europeans have not committed their diplomatic gaffes. One can be rightfully castigate the French for meddling in the food-for-oil programme and thus contributing to the current crisis. One can shake one's head at the diplomatic blunders and big mouths of prominent European ministers. One can particularly deplore an event such as the defacing of American war-time graves.<br>
<br>
It however does not change the sad fact that most of the anti-Americanism sentiment which sweeps Europe today could easily have been avoided. All it would have required would have been for certain members of the Bush administration to think before they speak, to tone down its "For us or against us" rhetoric and for the US to actually pretend to care what its allies thought. A little bit of humility to go with the strength.<br>
<br>
Strangely enough, this is an opinion that was once shared by a prominent person within the US administration, who commented on the best way to combat anti-Americanism:<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>
"It really depends on how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."<br>
<hr><br>
<br>
The speaker was George W. Bush.<br>
<br>
He was absolutely right, back then.<br>
<p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 4/17/03 12:18:23 am<br></i>
