January 31, 2005
Back from Davos
I just returned from the World Economic Forum and compared to past editions this year antiamericanism was harder to track for lack of...Americans. The absence of high profile representatives from the Bush Administration was due perhaps to the fact that many of them have not yet "passed their exams" at the Congress, but it was widely interpreted by Europeans as a proof that this Administration just does not care about the US image in the rest of the world
Posted by Federico Rampini at 5:35 PM
January 13, 2005
America and its adverse International Community
Concerning the recent 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, the Independent from the British Daily aptly wrote, "America has voted for Bush, and the world must live with the consequences." In reflecting upon growing international anti-American sentiment and the role America must face in the imminent future, it is this type of rhetoric that leaves many questioning the new role America will by in the 21st Century.
In Europe, faith in U.S. government is far common belief. European-U.S. relations undeniably point to a bleak future as a once “long time ally” now has become a distant threat. Rumors of European alienation, largely due to George W. Bush’s reelection has been the talk of the town, especially in France, where President Jacques Chirac has “almost always said no to Washington” with regards to France in response to American proposals concerning current foreign policy issues. Perhaps such anti-American resentment is justified however, in lieu of the radical shift of American Republican politics seems to be heading.
Though America has won over some support in the greater European areas, including Tony Blair’s Great Britain (a long standing supporter of American government), Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, much is still at stake in the eyes of the international community at large. A looming fear seems to be settling in across European borders concerning America’s newly adapted support towards a more conservative Republican Party, strongly rooted in Christian ideals, as shown in Bush’s overwhelming conservative vote.
In fact, according to the Yale Global Online, “The European Union is proud of having shed extremism, exacerbated nationalism, and religious fundamentalism: The notion of the world divided between Good and Evil is perceived with dread, and religious practice is slowly fading away. Nothing underlines the cultural gulf better than the recent European Parliament rejection of a highly religious Italian commissioner candidate. He had publicly condemned homosexuality as a sin and stated that women should stay at home and bear children. Having rejected such views in their midst, European politicians find the influence of conservative religion in American politics extremely difficult to grasp.” (“US Election and the World.” Yale Global Online. 8 November 2004.)
Issues like abortion and gay-marriage continue to raise voices in the U.S. as rejection of pro-gay marriage legislation has become the norm. For many years now however, the U.S. has been a model of modernity in the eyes of the rest of the world. Thus, the increasingly baffled expressions should not shock us when Bush’s religiosity seems more similar to Middle Eastern ties to conservatism than to anything else remotely ‘modern.’ People are shocked by America’s tenacity to “values,” as religious fervor seems a battle of the past. Nonetheless, it is happening as we speak, perhaps revealing a cyclical trend human nature tends to resort to in dealing with questions “larger than themselves.”
Prior to the election results, many saw the European public in favor of John Kerry, as The Economist, (considered a rather conservative European magazine), endorsed the Democratic candidate, along with many politicians in France.
The growing adversity in the international community at large with regards to the reelection of George W. Bush looks bleak, particularly with regards to his foreign policy measures in Iraq. Though it is difficult to gage what the future has in store for the decline of the American hegemon, perhaps this is the beginning of a greater message that Europe will play a much larger role in world politics in the coming decade.
Posted by Stephanie Marie Lowe at 2:31 AM
December 8, 2004
Anti-Americanism- an intractable problem?
When someone hurls an insult at you, your instinctive response is likely to be something like this- you get highly defensive, enraged with your seemingly unreasonable critics and then devise devious plans to get back at them. Rage or feelings of being victimized blind reason, or at least when the wounds are fresh. Then, two things can happen- one, such hostility is further perpetuated unabatedly between you and your antagonist when no attempts are made to understand the reasons for such insults or two, you cool down after your initial enragement, calmly ponder over possible elements of truth in the criticism and seek to correct your faults or the misconceptions that led to this unpleasant episode.
Unfortunately, pride and intolerance have provided fodder for the brewing anti-Americanism today. In response to the anti-American sentiments abroad, the United States has not done much to abate such sentiments, nor does it seem to be affected much by them. In a nation where humility perhaps isn’t the most widespread national trait, there is a pervasive instinct to resist, rather than to admit. It certainly does not help that Bush, post-Sept 11, declared to the rest of the world that “Either you are with us or against us.”
If we take a closer look at some of the reasons for these anti-American sentiments, we realize that they are partially a result of myths and can actually be dissipated. Often, slandering and political scapegoating are convenient political tools that can be repeatedly exploited by political parties to redirect attention away from domestic problems. Take for example, the Middle East, where anti-American sentiments run high. Nicholas Schmidle, a contributor to The Daily Star, highlights the Iranian leaders’ persistence in vilifying the U.S. Thus, there is every reason to believe that much of the anti-Americanism there is regime-generated. Add to this the lack of access to accurate information on the part of the masses, the intensity of anti-Americanism is perhaps not so surprising.
Furthermore, as an editorial from The Yemen Times points out, quite often, “official media thinks that its sole function is to polish the image of the government and to make sure that the public should only hear, see and read what never leads to any discontent among the public”. Individuals who seek to take a more critical stance towards public affairs are often proclaimed as dissenters whose sole purposes are to find fault with the regime- as such, state run media often serves as a mouthpiece of the government and wields the power to significantly influence public opinion by endorsing any agenda that the state may have. In the article by Schmidle, he points out that some Iranians do question the credibility of the information they receive. Yet, such individuals are likely to be the exception rather than the norm. Under such circumstances of incomplete information and intentional shaping of public opinion by the government, are people to blame for what they think?
Misperceptions of America are not limited to the certain less developed countries, which suffer from a dearth of information. Misconstrued notions of America and lack of understanding of the American culture is commonplace even in Europe. Take the example of French anti-Americanism- in L’ennemi Americain, a fascinating genealogy of French anti-Americanism, Philippe Roger observes that “the French do not understand what makes the heart of America tick, while being exposed daily to its mass culture and its products”. This suggests that xenophobia could have contributed significantly to much of the anti-American sentiments among the French. Conversely, in their current mindset, “the Bush administration and its supporters have little interest in - or understanding of - a country that once considered itself to be the world’s exceptional nation”. Consequently, a reciprocal hands-off approach from the United States perpetuates the mutual misunderstanding.
Investigating the reasons behind accusations is imperative. It will be regretful if we end up viewing with animosity, someone who calls us names because he has been misled and indoctrinated to believe in our treachery. Or for that matter, bearing a deep grudge against someone who is simply a little queasy and uncomfortable with a foreign presence slowly encroaching and eroding values that he has believed in all his life. Bearing that in mind, with a little humility and initiative, it is perhaps not that difficult to turn some foes into friends.
Posted by Shi Min Tan at 8:15 AM
The co-existence of pro-Americanism and anti-Americanism – a paradox?
As an overseas student studying in Berkeley, I make it a point to visit the online version of The Straits Times from time to time to keep myself somewhat updated on local news. This past week, I was unwittingly drawn to the local buzz about the final showdown between two contestants on the show, Singapore Idol (a local adaptation of the widely popular American Idol). At the back of my mind, also, was the nagging concern of coming up with two final pieces of longer blog entries for my journalism class on Elections 2004.
With the theme of anti-Americanism lurking in my head, I suppose I saw this totally apolitical temporary national frenzy over the Singapore Idol contestants in a different light. Although we have frequently been told by informed observers and columnists that ‘anti-Americanism’ is rapidly sweeping across the globe, here I am witnessing an instance of ‘pro-Americanism’, in the form of widespread popularity of American pop culture. And this isn’t an isolated example of the pervasive influence of American culture; reality shows such as The Survivor, The Amazing Race or The Apprentice are but some bits of American pop culture that have shown up in many of my conversations with friends.
This in turn leads me to think more critically about the all-encompassing, undifferentiating notion of ‘anti-Americanism’ that has grabbed the headlines of many publications over the past few years, with increasing voracity ever since the September 11th attacks. First, “anti-Americanism”, in itself, is hardly significant in conveying what the rest of the world opposes about the United States, simply because it can mean so many things. Are people opposed to the United States’ hypocritical attempts to spread democracy? Or are they referring to European leaders’ disgruntlement with Bush’s unilateralist stance in making decisions with global repercussions? “Anti-Americanism” has mutated into this catchphrase for opposition to US foreign policy, resentment against the export of American culture to many parts of the world, or mere opposition to capitalism and multi-national corporations, that it is crucial to examine the respective contexts in which this phrase is used.
Using such a slightly more nuanced approach, we can then proceed to examine the somewhat contradictory co-existence of pro-American and anti-American sentiments. Precisely because different people get mad with or embrace America for a variety of reasons, every country/region can maintain a love-hate relationship with America. Such a phenomenon has interestingly manifested itself in Iran, a place where many would associate with intense anti-American sentiments. In an opinion article that appeared in The Daily Star, a leading Lebanon newspaper, the author observes that,
“Iran itself suffers from internal contradictions that the mullahs wish did not exist. The Iranian people love America, and there is very little the government in Tehran can do to cool pro-Americanism on the streets.”
“Iranians' fondness for America is nearer to that of a secret admirer than what exists between lifelong chums. By distancing itself from the United States, the Islamic regime has allowed many of its citizens to create "America" in their own minds. For the older generations, "America" recalls an era of economic affluence that the mullahs have been unable to reinstate since overthrowing the shah. For the younger ones, "America" evokes a fantasy of liberal social attitudes. Many young Iranians now openly defy the regime's prohibition of alcohol and coed activities.”
Consequently, due to the gap between public opinion and the government’s stand, even in places where intense anti-American sentiments supposedly reign, we see sentiments within a country are far from homogeneous.
Looking from a macro-perspective, it is true that anti-American sentiments can be found all over the world, but so can pro-American sentiments. The latter has been intentionally downplayed by media outlets, which have chosen not to highlight this somewhat less ‘fresh’ phenomenon. It is also important to see that anti-Americanism sentiments are not evenly distributed throughout the world. “Hot spots” of anti-American sentiments exist alongside regions that do not display any clear hatred or affiliation. However, media sensationalization tends to create an inaccurate impression of rampant and widespread anti-Americanism spanning all continents. Furthermore, the intensity of anti-American sentiments among dissenters differ; the “anti-Americanism” among many Arabs in the Middle-East are perhaps many times stronger than, say, in an environmentalist organization disappointed with Bush’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Lastly, the views of governments and the people do not always coincide. Even in cases where governments attempt to shape public opinion, by spreading propaganda aimed at fomenting anti-American sentiments; these regimes are not always successful. It is important to distinguish government positions from individuals’ views because usually, they do not necessarily concur. This is re-emphasized by the example quoted above, where the Iranian people embrace the American culture and attitudes despite intense government opposition to US foreign policy.
Perhaps it is not so shocking and unusual to find both pro-American and anti-American sentiments co-existing after all. Nor will I totally discount the possibility of some form of “Iran Idol” taking shape some time in the near future.
Posted by Shi Min Tan at 8:04 AM
December 6, 2004
Arabs: Anti-war? Yes. Anti-Americans? Look closer
Is the reelection of George W. Bush going to feed anti-Americanism? In the Arab world, the expected anger didn’t happen. Instead, media published a critique of the American foreign policy and reasons of its failure. Meanwhile, in the streets, Arabs just observe what will happen in Iraq and in Palestine.
Is the reelection of George W. Bush going to feed anti-Americanism? In the Arab world, the expected anger didn’t happen. Instead, media published a critique of the American foreign policy and reasons of its failure. Meanwhile, in the streets, Arabs just observe what will happen in Iraq and in Palestine.
For years, media gave an image of Arabs that hate America simply as the “Occident”, the “evil”.
But the reality is that Arabs love America, still believe in the American dream, are the biggest consumers of Mac Donald’s and Coca Cola, are tuned just as the others on MTV and go, when they can, to study in America.
But their attachment to the creation of a Palestinian state and their reprobation of Iraq’s invasion was expressed by all their ways. Arabs always condemned the U.S. support for Israel’s policies. Arabs always defended the right of the Palestinians to have their own land. These positions have always been amplified by the American media, after 9/11 particularly, as pure and unjustified anti-Americanism. The repeated claim that Arabs hate Americans is, in my opinion, a very dangerous strategy. It only pours the oil on the flames in order to scare Americans, who started to see citizens from Arab countries as potential terrorists.
A culture of fear
For Muammad Ali Al-Farra from the Jordanian newspaper Addustour, “the election strategy has been to emphasize the security angle in order to capitalize on Sept. 11 and avoid discussing pertinent domestic issues“. Mission accomplished for Mr. Bush who succeeded on the security issue, helped by fear.
Arabs showed their surprise that Americans still trust an administration that lied to them and misguided them on the Iraqi issue. Yes, Bush is the lesser of two evils, but still an evil. And from the beginning of the campaign, there was no unanimity on “the best winner”. All Arabs don’t think the same. If they share religion (and all Arabs are not Muslims), their interests are different.
A complex relationship
Business and oil makes the relations more complex than a superficial view of the Anti-Americanism by Arabs. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, two major US allies, were certainly happy to see George W. Bush win.
Remember, Fahrenheit 9/11. For instance, the editorial of the London based Al-Quds Al Arabi, on August 14, criticized Riyadh for what is perceived as its pro-Bush policies. For al-Quds al-Arabi, the mid-month increase of Saudi oil production was specifically designed to help Bush in his bid for the presidency, in total contrast with the position of the Saudi society, clearly disliking American politicians.
An impression of deja vu?
Same support in Kuwait, where former Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.N. Abdullah Bisharah thinks that Bushh’s War on Terror[ism] represents a good start toward improving global security (Al-Seyassah, Sept. 3). Bisharah says that Arabs living in Gulf states should appreciate the efforts Bush has made against terrorist groups that seek to destabilize the region and overthrow their governments. He also believes that the U.S. presence in Iraq is a stabilizing force, and is necessary to prevent the strife and violence instigated by groups like Sadr’s militia, Ansar Islam and al-Zarqawi’s cell.
Anti-Americanism or anti-Zionism?
That’s the real question. Palestine is still dear to Arabs and for them, the cause is worth fighting for. Now that Yasser Arafat is not there anymore, Arabs hope Americans and Israelis won’t find new pretexts to not progress in the application of the road map.
Arabs didn’t want Kerry because, as a left-winger, he was in reality to the right of Bush on the Israeli question, which means a complete support for Sharon’s policies, concerning the Security Wall, settlements, Palestinian refugees, or the necessity of having Jerusalem as the ‘undivided’ capital of the Jewish state.
As for George W. Bush, in his second mandate, he will probably be more concerned with his historical legacy and thus less beholden to any political interests or lobbies, says Abd al-Wahhab al-Afandi in Al-Quds Al Arabi (Aug. 31).
But only history will say if it’s right.
Al-Seyassah
Addustour
Al Quds Al Arabi
Posted by Najla Benmbarek at 1:26 AM
December 4, 2004
"Those Damn Yankees. They Deserved it": Canadian Anti-Americanism
The protests that drew thousands in Ottawa, Quebec, Vancouver, and elsewhere, during President Bush’s visit to Canada last week, do not represent a mild sentiment that was only triggered by the election and the visit. Canadian academics and politicians, and much of the population, assert many journalists, are rabidly Anti-American. Why would they feel this way about their neighbors?
In an Oct. 2001 article, “Those Damn Yankees,” from the Canadian Macleans media observation website, Historians J. L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer give a historical overview of the US-Canadian relationship. At the time, a Canadian professor made comments about Americans deserving the punishment of the Sept. 11th attack, and was cheered on by hundreds of audience members who were subsequently joined by a chorus of media, intellectuals, and global activists.
From invasion threats in the 1700s and 1800s, to the overwhelming imposition of the American culture and economy on Canadians, to American’s braggadocio after the century’s two world wars that America entered far after the Canadians did, the authors say that “Canadians could effortlessly view their neighbours with a baleful gaze. They were rich and crass, but also immoral and violent.”
And with that history, Canadians find all kinds of current reasons to feel that way toward the United States. Not the least of these is Bush’s foreign policy and the mess he’s created in Iraq. The protestors were also angry about the prospect of Canada's participation in a U.S. missile-defense shield.
For his part, President Bush said the visit, here on a Canadian news website, intended to mend relations with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, went well. He thanked the few Canadians “who came out to wave – with all five fingers,” and gave his belated gratitude for Canada’s help with stranded airplanes during the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
That doesn’t mean the Canadian parliament is eagerly embracing Bush. One independent-party MP, Carolyn Parrish, is notorious for her brash anti-American and anti-Bush comments. Several months ago, she called Americans “idiots” and the day after Bush’s re-election she said she was “dumbfounded” and called him “war-like.” Parrish often refuses whenever she is asked by other Parliament members to “stop embarrassing” Canada.
At the Ottawa protests, Parris stomped up and down on a Bush doll.
Parrish was on CNN’s Crossfire last week, and as the Edmonton Sun reports, scored fairly well as she faced conservative commentator and host, Tucker Carlson.
As for whether the mend in U.S-Canadian relations has been accomplished, that remains to be seen.
Posted by Lubna Takruri at 5:05 PM
November 24, 2004
American Anti-Americanism
The British writer Timothy Garton Ash notes is "seriously worried by anti-Americanism in America". Traveling for two weeks after the election he has heard quite violent reactions from frustrated democrats who want to emigrate to Canada or apologize publicly to the world.
There might not be many new elements in this article for an American public, but it is significant information in Europe where people tend (only "tend") to think that if Bush was democratically elected, it means that "Americans" are behind him. To them Garton Ash writes:
"Overstated though the dichotomy is between red and blue America, it does mean that no one who is at all well informed can believe that America is Bush and Bush is America. If the west is divided, the dividing line runs slap-bang through the middle of America."
Another cause for concern is the looming battle " preserve the strict separation of church and state that the founding fathers intended." About which Garton Ash writes:
"Hands need to be joined across the sea in an old cause: the defence of the Enlightenment. We are all blue Americans now."
It might be of interest to note that this column first published in The Guardian (U.K.) on November 18th then appeared in El País (Spain) on November 21st and then in La Tribuna Hispana, a Latino site in the U.S. on the 23rd. For those who are really serious about it, there are some differences in the stories. They might be revealing.
La Tribuna Hispana (U.S.) – El 'blues' de Estados Unidos
The Guardian (U.K.) – American blues
Posted by Francis Pisani at 8:40 AM
October 20, 2004
Australia: Anti-Bush but not anti-American
A survey of attitudes towards the United States showed that most Australians "draw a clear distinction - [they] have a warm attitude to Americans, and think the US relationship is important, yet take a dim view of President Bush".
The poll found that John Kerry was favored in November's presidential election with 54% of the votes, compared to George Bush's 28%. Australia's results mirrored the outcome of a wider ten-country survey, with Kerry enjoying 52% support and Bush averaging 28%.
Sponsored in Australia by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, the survey also found that about 75% of Australians have a favorable view of Americans. Of the ten countries surveyed, all but one (Spain) said they had "a positive view of Americans in general".
The Guardian (United Kingdom) - Anti-Bush but not anti-American
Anti-Bush but not anti-American
Australia's opinion of George Bush has deteriorated during his first term, writes Peter Hartcher
Peter Hartcher
Friday October 15, 2004
The Guardian
Most Australians don't like George W Bush, and their opinion of the US has deteriorated during his term as president - and we are not alone. A ten-country survey of attitudes to the US shows that Australia is right on average in its reaction to Mr Bush and his America.
Australians would prefer to see the Democrat alternative, John Kerry, prevail in the November 2 election by 54 per cent to 28 per cent. This is in near-perfect alignment with the average of opinion in the ten-country sample - the average is 52 per cent for Senator Kerry compared to 28 per cent for Mr Bush.
If the citizens of these ten countries were electing the next US President, Mr Kerry would be elected by seven and only two, Israel and Russia, would re-elect Mr Bush.
We are not anti-American. Like all of the other countries in the survey but one - Spain - most Australians say they have a positive view of Americans in general.
About three-quarters of Australians have a favourable view of "the Americans", and nine in ten believe that good relations with the US are important for Australia, the poll shows.
So most Australians, like the bulk of people surveyed in the other countries, draw a clear distinction - we have a warm attitude to Americans, and think the US relationship is important, yet take a dim view of President Bush.
In common with other surveys, this suggests that public opinion worldwide has recoiled from Mr Bush. The US President is still the leader of the free world, yet the free world is less inclined to approve of him.
The survey, sponsored in Australia by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age and conducted by ACNielsen, was sponsored by a major metropolitan daily newspaper in each of the ten nations.
In a separate exercise - three series of surveys conducted across 44 countries by the Washington-based Pew Research Centre - the turning point in world attitudes to the Bush administration was found to be the invasion of Iraq.
Australians have an unfavourable opinion of Mr Bush in the ratio of two to one - 64 per cent compared to 32 per cent who say they have a favourable opinion of him. And this is closely in line with the average across the ten countries of 62 per cent with a negative view of Mr Bush as against 31 per cent favourably disposed towards the 43rd president.
But, although Australians would elect Senator Kerry over Mr Bush, they are not particularly impressed with the Democrat alternative. Thirty-eight per cent of Australians have a positive view of the Democratic candidate for the presidency, John Kerry, and 25 per cent are negative on him.
The poll included a sample of long-standing American friends as well as a traditional rival, America's neighbours as well as distant powers, across four continents.
It included America's two continental neighbours, Canada and Mexico. It also sampled three of America's Nato allies - Britain, France and Spain - plus three other strategic allies of the US: Japan, South Korea and Israel.
The traditional rival, Russia, is, however, a recent friend of America's, but is embracing it with the zeal of a convert. The Russians surveyed were more likely to have a positive view of Americans than those in any other country.
The opinion toward the US of 54 per cent of Australians has worsened over "the past two or three years" according to poll of 1,417 Australians surveyed, while it has improved for only 28 per cent.
This is closely aligned with the ten-country average of 56 per cent with a dimmer view of the US compared to 20 per cent with a brighter opinion.
· Peter Hartcher is International Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald
Posted by Lena Malcolm at 10:53 AM