| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Anti-Americanism's Deep Roots |
| 2006-06-20 |
| Hat tip No Pasaran. The Current Wave of Hostility Will Ebb. But This Is About More Than the Iraq War. By Robert Kagan I recently took part in a panel discussion in London about civil conflict and "failed states" around the world, centered on the interesting work of the British economist Paul Collier. The panelists included the son of a famous African liberation-leader-turned-dictator, the former leader of a South American guerrilla group, a Pakistani journalist, a U.N. official and the head of a nongovernmental humanitarian organization. Naturally, our reasoned and learned discussion quickly transmogrified into an extended round-robin denunciation of American foreign policy. The interesting thing was that the Iraq war was far from the main topic. George W. Bush hardly came up. The panelists focused instead on a long list of grievances against the United States stretching back over six decades. There was much discussion of the "colonial legacy" and "neo-colonialism," especially in the Middle East and Africa. And even though the colonies in question had been ruled by Europeans, panelists insisted that this colonial past was the source of most of the world's resentment toward the United States. There was much criticism of American policy during the Cold War for imposing evil regimes, causing poverty and suffering throughout the world, and blocking national liberation movements as a service to oil companies and multinational corporations. When the moderator brought up nuclear weapons proliferation and Iran, the panelists talked about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As for "failed states" and civil conflict, several panelists agreed that they were always and everywhere the fault of the United States. The African insisted that Bosnia and Kosovo were destroyed by American military interventions, not by Slobodan Milosevic, and that Somalia was a failed state because of American policy. The Pakistani insisted the United States was to blame for Afghanistan's descent into anarchy in the 1990s. The former guerrilla leader insisted that most if not all problems in the Western Hemisphere were the product of over a century of American imperialism. Some of these charges had more merit than others, but even the moderator became exasperated by the general refusal to place any responsibility on the peoples and leaders of countries plagued by civil conflict. Yet the panelists held their ground. When someone pointed out that the young boys fighting in African tribal and ethnic wars could hardly be fighting against American "imperialism," the African dictator's son insisted they were indeed. When the head of the NGO paused from gnashing his teeth at American policy to suggest that perhaps the United States was not to blame for the genocide in Rwanda, the African dictator's son argued that it was, because it had failed to intervene. The United States was to blame both for the suffering it caused and the suffering it did not alleviate. The discussion was illuminating. There is no question that the Iraq war has aroused hostility toward the United States around the world. And there are many legitimate criticisms to be made about America's conduct of the war. But it is worth keeping in mind that this anger against the United States also has deep roots. The Iraq war has rekindled myriad old resentments toward the United States, a thousand different complaints, each one specific to a time and place far removed from the present conflict. It has united a diverse spectrum of anti-American views in common solidarity -- the Marxist Africans still angry over American policy in the 1960s and '70s, the Pakistanis still furious at America's (bipartisan) support for the dictator Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq in the 1970s and '80s, the French theoreticians who started railing against the American "hyperpower" in the 1990s, That would be the socialist Hubert Védrine, in his eponymous book ("Against the hyperpower", IIRC), but the late socialist french president François Mitterrand used to say that the "real ennemy was the USA" back in the 80's, and JFM commented that Shiraq's biography sez he thinks alike. the Latin ex-guerrillas still waging their decades-old struggle against North American imperialism, the Arab activists still angry about 1948. At a conference in the Middle East a few months ago, I heard a moderate Arab scholar complaining bitterly about how American policy had alienated the Arab peoples in recent years. A former Clinton official sitting next to him was nodding vigorously but then suddenly stopped when the Arab scholar made clear that by "recent years" he meant ever since 1967. The Iraq war has also made anti-Americanism respectable again, as it was during the Cold War but had not been since the demise of the Soviet Union. People who a decade ago would not have been granted a platform to spout the kind of arguments I heard on this panel are now given star treatment in the Western and global media. Such people were always there, but no one was listening to them. Today they dominate the airwaves, and this in turn is helping produce an increasingly hostile global public opinion, as evidenced in a recent Pew poll. There are two lessons to be drawn from all this. One is that in time the current tidal wave of anti-Americanism will ebb, just as in the past. Smarter American diplomacy can help, of course, as can success in places such as Iraq. But the other lesson is not to succumb to the illusion that America was beloved until the spring of 2003 and will be beloved again when George W. Bush leaves office. Some folks seem to believe that by returning to the policies of Harry Truman, Dean Acheson and John F. Kennedy, America will become popular around the world. I like those policies, too, but let's not kid ourselves. They also sparked enormous resentment among millions of peoples in many countries, resentments that are now returning to the fore. The fact is, because America is the dominant power in the world, it will always attract criticism and be blamed both for what it does and what it does not do. No one should lightly dismiss the current hostility toward the United States. International legitimacy matters. It is important in itself, and it affects others' willingness to work with us. But neither should we be paralyzed by the unavoidable resentments that our power creates. If we refrained from action out of fear that others around the world would be angry with us, then we would never act. And count on it: They'd blame us for that, too. Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #11 How much did Kagan get paid for this nonsense? This is a well, duh! article. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-06-20 14:34 |
| #10 -- But it is worth keeping in mind that this anger against the United States also has deep roots.-- According to the late Philippe Roger, around 1750. In short, the world wants it all now and don't forget the pony. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-06-20 14:33 |
| #9 You know, there are still people in Israel who believe that if we just explained to the Europeans... I must admit, I find Americans falling into the same trap somewhat entertaining. Just look at the list of the panelists. Scum vermin doesn't start to describe them. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-06-20 13:57 |
| #8 Was this in Europe or did the DNC hold another strategery meeting? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-06-20 10:51 |
| #7 There was much discussion of the "colonial legacy" and "neo-colonialism," especially in the Middle East and Africa No comment about Soviet colonialism in Eastern Europe? No comment about various Middle Eastern, African, etc stooges and lackeys of Moscow who played their country and people for power? Like the moonbats unwillingness to face facts, these people, who Blame American[tm] will never be able to admit they themselves played the game and are responsible for their miserable failures far more than anything some haberdasher from Kansas City Missouri is responsible for. |
| Posted by: Whereling Whish1824 2006-06-20 09:29 |
| #6 PCism still controls the American dialog. Hell, we haven't yet called Islam the problem, though many get it, and many more are added every day. That we are losing the PR War, as you point out, is no surprise. The dialog is slowly transforming. From Extremists and Fundamentalists to Islamist terrorists to simply Islam takes time. We haven't but a handful of politicians willing to state the case correctly, yet. Thus it's no surprise that we lose the PR war with the Wahhabists for the time being. Eventually we will finally call a spade a spde and Islam will be on trial in far more venues than the few places like Rantburg. Of course it's even worse in the MSM as they evolve in the opposite direction, ending with benign terms such as militants and gunmen. Clearly, they are attempting to prevent people from seeing the truth of the matter, but they are, slowly, losing the battle of ideas in the marketplace. The circulation figures and opinion polls regard Islam prove the point. Indeed, we should be putting the equation differently to the world. We're getting there, just far more slowly than those who get it now prefer. We're coming, JFM, hang on, bro. |
| Posted by: Thavilet Ulosh6709 2006-06-20 05:58 |
| #5 The isolationistic approach (we don't care what the others think) adavocated by some people in this blmog has the drawback that it lets the enemy fight unopposed the propaganda war until one day America finds herself alone against the whole world. But the article starts from the false premise than it is to America should alter its policy to reach for the others when it should be that America should make an effort for having the others shere her views. In blunt terms America sucks in the PR area. Let's give a concrete example: After the embassy bombings in Africa the Clinton adminsitrations promised ito indemnify the African victims. When the indemnification proccess dragged for years, the people in the country became resentful not to Al Quaida but to America. What should have been done: 1) Highligt that in order to kill a dozen Americans Al Quaida had not hesitated to kill two hundred Blacks and wound a thousand other (many of them mutilated and in danger of starving). Then continue by pointing of how little value were the lives of Blacks for wahabists/Al Quaidists even when they were Muslims 2) Point that the perpetrators were Saudis, that their acts were the consequence of the official Saudi religion ie wahabism and that thus it was to Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family to indemnify the victims not to America. But help the victims in the legal proccedings against Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family. 3) Unlike Clinton promising nothing but provide some limited and fast aid to victims as an urgency succour but present it as something given from America's humanity not as something it owed to the victims and that it was to the Saudis to pay the bill. And now we would have a country where wahabis would fear for their lives, where people at the very least would not be hostile to America and we would have planted the germs of discord between Black and Arab Muslims. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-06-20 05:39 |
| #4 A couple days ago I had the luck to find an interview of Pierre Closterman a Free French (1) ace pilot and he tells that at the end of the war his wingman (another Free French) advised him to leave France because people wouldn't like to owe something to someone. Closterman himself found that French people were uneasy in front of those who had not surrendered. (1) A real Free French ie one who belonged to Free France proper (that is before July, 22, 1942 when Free France became France combattante) and thus joined before El Alamein, Stalingrad, Torch. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-06-20 05:01 |
| #3 There can be no isolationism, while foreign animals are developing ICBMs. Ergo: Pax Americana Enemy life is cheap |
| Posted by: Shurt Angaimble9728 2006-06-20 04:59 |
| #2 This is the losers resentment of the winners. It's the resentments of schoolyard rewritten as geopolitics. It's not fair the goodlooking people are also smart, succesful and people look up to them and try to copy what they do. All the nerds hate them, so they are not really popular. What's amazing is how widespread this view is. I know otherwise intelligent people who suscribe to this rubbish. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-06-20 04:29 |
| #1 Damnit, Kagan, stop repeating the BS. Big surprise. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Duh. What's the point in caring what "they" think? The assertion that we need them, that "international legitimacy" matters, is grossly and obviously specious - Kagan should go soak his head for a month - it's a grand farce promoted by those who claim to be able to anoint and convey the spurious label of legitimacy. Self-appointed authorities who have no grounds for the claim. Bullshit alert. Ignore them all, the UN, EU, et al, and do what is best for the US. Let's just see how far they get without us, without their "action arm" and "funding arm" to pay for their pony shows, to make shit happen, to put teeth into their drivel, to clean up the messes they allow to fester into crisis with their hand-wringing mewling and pointless debate, to save the lame from their own lack of foresight, to bolster them with aid in spite of their ineptitude and congenital corruption. How many "states" would literally have failed without US trade, foreign aid, political support, and the defensive umbrella we have provided for the last 60+ years, I wonder... It almost seems as though we are the ones who actually convey legitimacy, in our stumbling cowboyish unsophisticated way. This shit almost makes me want to become a pure isolationist for a decade or two to make the point. What makes the most sense, in a world of ankle-biting insanity as we see here, is to set our course and make it clear that any who recognize benefit in joining us is welcome to do so. But this is where we're going, period. Choose and STFU about it. In the end, no matter what any "expert" says, other countries will do what suits them and butters their bread. Period. If we have parallel win-win interests we can cooperate in the venture. If not, so be it. The farce of pandering and trying to buy influence with lavish aid and by suborning our own interests has been thoroughly disproven over the last 40-50 years. This is the threadbare and failed State Department Free Money, Accommodation, and Concession Model. Those who we thought to be allies are not, except where it is in their interests, where the getting is good. They jettison us for momentary domestic political gain, then decry the "split" and blame it on us. Bullshit rising. If aid or compromise or accommodation or concession is needed to find middle ground, we are always expected to be the ones to do the aiding, compromising, accommodating, and conceding - and then they stab us in the back anyway. Bullshit rising. Nothing in the history of our foreign relations is clearer - so why drag up the same old tired shit, over and over again? Bullshit flood. Pass out the snorkels. This is repeating failed actions and expecting a different result. |
| Posted by: Ebbineper Ebbeaper1581 2006-06-20 03:42 |