In one or more recent opinion polls, Europeans preferred China to the U.S. (I’m afraid I don’t have the time or inclination to locate the polls). I wonder what the residents of the Old Continent will have to say about this story, as reported by the New York Times:
- Residents of a fishing village near Hong Kong said that as many as 20 people had been killed by paramilitary police in an unusually violent clash that marked an escalation in the widespread social protests that have roiled the Chinese countryside. Villagers said that as many as 50 other residents remain unaccounted for since the shooting. It is the largest known use of force by security forces against ordinary citizens since the killings around Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Further on in the story, there’s this rather amazing statement:
- By the government’s tally there were 74,000 riots or other significant public disturbances in 2004, a big jump from previous years.
A question for the European public: if China is such a wonderful place, why were there 74,000 (!) “disturbances” last year?
Part of the problem with the manner in which we have framed this war on terror is that we have espoused things which have hit at the core of the international system in existence since WWII. In many ways, al Qaeda is fighting an insurgency campaign against us, part of their strategy is too have us shoot ourselves in the foot through actions or deeds which reduce the legitimacy others in teh world place in us. Gitmo, torture, renditions, secret prisons, fear are some of the things we have been promoting. In essence, we have been giving the world, not a vision of a future worth creating, but rather that of a fear worth avoiding. Marc Sageman’s book “Understanding Terror Networks, found that people are more likely to fight and die to achieve a positive vision, than they are a negative one. This applies not only to terrorists, but also to regular humans. We’ve allowed the debate on terrorism to become about fear, torture and other things for which the US was not known before. That has allowed, China, whom we all know is not the paragon of Human Rights or Justice, to emerge as an alternative to the American hegemon. China talks about a peaceful rise, about regional cooperation, about the environment (rhetoric yes, but the perception it creates might as well be reality) while we talk about the dark side. Getting back to Sageman’s point, we have lost the ability to motivate people to do things (follow our rules, promote our ideals, etc.) hence people are less willing to do the bidding of what they perceive to be an autocratic hegemon. This is particularly true when as I stated above all we promote are negative notions of the future, when we seem to be becoming that which we are fighting.
To be fair, we are not only promoting negative notions, we are also promoting democracy, economic growth, prosperity, but when we have the president saying we don’t torture, even as another case emerges, or that the Pentagon is buying news outlets in Iraq to feed propaganda to Iraqis (regardless of any legitimate reason) it gives the impression that we are no better than the dictators we seek to replace, or those whom we are fighting, no matter how horrific what they do is. This administration has failed to frame the debate and has allowed it to be framed by others, hence Europes attitude toward China despite the reports we are getting from there. It is a failure of leadership and a failure of vision. I believe Thomas Barnett has said it best: America has created many new rules since 9/11, but the only ones that matter in the end are those recognized by other nations and taken up as their own. Globalization comes with rules but not a ruler. We may propose but never impose, because the difference between the leader and the led is not merely their competing visions of power but the power of their competing visions.
nykrindc—Thanks for an excellent comment. I agree with most of it as far as it goes, but I think it omits the following:
Before the end of the Cold War, there was a good bully (the US) and a bad bully (the USSR). When the Soviet Union bit the dust, the bad bully disappeared from the scene. With that disappearance, the good bully was transformed into the bad bully.
In other words, I think that, to a large extent, there’s little we could have done to prevent the deterioration in how others view us. There was significant anti-Americanism in Europe and in the Middle East before 9/11. Our reaction to 9/11 and our invasion of Iraq intensified the prevailing mindset, but it didn’t create it.
I agree with most of what you said. However, much like what happened to Guilliani in NYC when he was major (a good one at that) he made the mistake of making enemies when it wasn’t necessary to do so to achieve his aims. Similarly, the administration did many things that in hindsight reduced our credibility and the legitimacy of the United States. That has added to the perception of the US as the global “bully.” A different approach, while it may have not done alot, would have gone a long way toward reducing the amount of anemosity we are now experiencing. I mean, Kyoto for example, it was something that everyone outside of the US wanted, everyone knew it was impossible and that most participants could never fully fullfill the promises they made. Point in case, Europe, they will not make the emission’s cuts that they say they would, and now are trying to rewrite the rules. We knew it was going to happen and that once it did, all everyone would do is look at yet another failed attempt to curve emissions and toward the next solution. This administration, rather than following Europe and Japan (who is also havaing trouble) decided to not participate in Kyoto drawing the greatest amount of criticism for refusing to even try. Had we joined, we would have still drawn ire, but it would have been spread throughout the Core, and not just on the US. We’ve done it before, and since, but the perception created by that one event (and the withdrawal from the ICC) demonstrated to the world that the Superpower was unhinged and no longer controllable. It may not have been the reality, as we perceived it, but it was as far as everyone else was concerned.
Much of the anti-Americanism around the world is due to the notion that power is inherently evil, ergo the United States is powerful, hence we are evil. By the same equation, anyone who is weak is good.
Isn’t this the basis of the support for the Palestinians around the world. Isn’t this why the so-call anti-war movement support the Baathists and Islamists in Iraq? It’s the rule that’s it’s always good sticking it to the Man, regardless of the good the Man brings and exactly who is doing the sticking. On a personal note, I like being the Man.
China is killing protestors again. Are the Europeans still looking to lift their arms embargo they put on China since the last time?
Powell,
That is but one reason, not the only one. Remember the oft quoted TR saying “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Many times, especially after 9/11 our government has been prone to showing the big stick and has forgotten about the diplomacy involved in achieving our aims. Most of the time, the leader can only get the led (particularly if it is a democracy/republic) by getting to view the leader’s interest as their own. In this struggle, we have so far failed to do that.
With regard to the Palestinians (and this is a whole other can of worms) one of the most important reasons they are seen as the victims is because Israel was created despite the Palestinians who lived on that land. In many ways, it is perceived to be one of the last times the West (Imperialists) used their power to give away land that did not belong to them and decide the fate of a people without regard for the people themselves (colonialism, if you will). It might not be the reality, but the perception as I’ve stated before is what is important. Further, as Ahmenijedad said recently, Germans and Austrians persecuted the Jews, why didn’t they give them a piece of their land for their state in Europe. A dreamer, and psycho yes, but the point he expressed is felt widely around the world. The state of Israel, rightly or wrongly, is viewed as the reparations paid for the atrocities committed against Jewish people during the holocaust. Reparations paid at the expense of the Palestinians. This is something we have to recognize when dealing with that particular issue. They are not right, but it is an attitude and an idea we have to change if we are to bring peace to the Holy Land.
nykrind,
I’m sorry but I don’t buy this argument that America isn’t diplomatic enough. Human nature being what it is, people are selfish, self-centered and self-absorbed. You give the weight of truth to their perceptions. I don’t.
Going off on your example, the Palestinians believe themselves to be victims, murdering, scheming victims with far too much blood on their hands, that is. This perception results in them never failing to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Did the Jordanians care about Palestinian victimhood when the PLO tried to take over Jordan? How much sympathy do Lebaneses have for the Palestinians who contributed so much to their civil war and subsequent lost of independence. Everyone has a sob story. What made the Palestinians so special? What about the Kurds, the largest ethnic group without their own state? What about the killings in Dafur? What about the average Chinese?
Personally, I like Israel, for no other reason than they are the only other country crapped on as much as the USA. Personally, I consider the USA a victim of international hypocrisy. That’s why we invaded Iraq. It may not be right, but it is an attitude and an idea we have to change if we are to bring peace to the Holy Land.