Posted on 07/14/2002 7:46:07 AM PDT by Pern
Editors note: This is the first in a three-part series of a Gannett News Service special report: America's Mixed Image Abroad.
WASHINGTON (GNS) - Is the United States benevolent or arrogant? Hypocritical or heroic?
The answer depends largely on where in the world you live.
Americans tend to think of themselves as a force for good in an increasingly troubled world, so the idea that many people abroad see them or their government as uncaring or evil is ludicrous, even maddening.
But people and governments on every continent see Americans' attitude as a part of the problem, as a sign that they are not trying to understand the rest of the world.
"We know you. You don't know us," Emad Adeeb, an Egyptian television and newspaper journalist told a recent Pew International Fellows conference in Washington. "What happens here is part of our local news. What happens (in the Arab world) is foreign news here."
Anger has been further fueled by the United States' prominent military role in the world as part of the war on terrorism - a marked shift from its 1990s role as a driving force in the global economy.
Before Sept. 11, the image was that "the president was CEO of the world," Adeeb said. "Now, the president is head sheriff."
Fair or not, that judgment is widely held outside the United States.
European allies are fuming over America's decisions to abandon treaties on global warming, arms control and an international war crimes court, as well as to protect American products with new tariffs on foreign goods. Anti-American feelings go much deeper in Arab countries, where the United States is viewed as blindly loyal to Israel.
What happened?
After the terrorist attacks, Americans realized that two oceans and two friendly countries at their borders no longer were enough to separate them from the terror and strife bedeviling much of the world.
President Bush spoke of a global war on terrorism and of a renewed effort to build democracy and prosperity in struggling countries.
But 10 months after the attacks, many countries view America more as a villain than a victim. Many analysts say anti-Americanism is higher now than at any time since the Vietnam War.
Surveys in Arab nations show that increasing numbers of people there believe that Israel, not Osama bin Laden, spearheaded the Sept. 11 attacks, even though his terrorist network has effectively claimed responsibility. The idea that Israel was somehow behind the World Trade Center attacks in an effort to tighten U.S. support for the Jewish state echoes throughout much of the Muslim world.
Anger at the United States has intensified in rhythm with the escalation of violence in the Middle East and U.S. support for Israel.
Outside a dilapidated housing project in Giza, a bustling suburb of Cairo, Mohammed Attia, 27, recalls the day when America was considered a good friend. That was when Egypt became the only Arab state to make peace with Israel, a deal brokered in Washington and rewarded by stability, economic and military aid, and investment by U.S. corporations. But the attitude has changed since the latest round of Israeli-Palestinian strife. There are anti-American demonstrations, and the fast food chains that seem as prevalent in Cairo as in any U.S. suburb can be targets, as well as eateries.
"Ever since the U.S. takes sides, we dislike the United States," Attia said. "The Jews will see their prophecy come true when all the Christians disappear and all the Muslims disappear," he said matter-of-factly.
In the Muslim world, "everything is seen through the prism of this big, unjust, Jewish conspiracy," said Najam Sethi, chief editor of the Daily Times in Lahore, Pakistan.
Double standards
America's image also suffers from the perception that its foreign policy is hypocritical.
The up, down and now up relationship between the Pakistani and U.S. governments points to the broader stress.
The United States long regarded Pakistan as a close ally, especially during neighboring Afghanistan's decade-long fight against the invading Soviet army. But after the Soviet Union collapsed, America "packed bag and baggage and left," Sethi said. "We felt totally betrayed."
Then the United States imposed sanctions on Pakistan because of its nuclear program, "which the United States had known about and condoned," Sethi said.
"Pakistan became even more of a pariah," he said, when Pervez Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected government. But since the Sept. 11 attacks, "the dictator has become a democrat ... and we are back to square one."
European allies were irked when Bush briefly threatened to pull U.S. troops out of a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Bosnia unless they were exempted from the jurisdiction of a new war crimes court the United States refuses to support. Critics also cite the dispute over U.S. steel tariffs and other protective trade measures that threaten to start a trade war with Europe. They say the United States preaches free trade but protects its own products and makes trade difficult with the poor countries that would benefit most.
Shifting priorities often make such double standards unavoidable, said Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a leading Republican foreign policy voice.
"The business of foreign policy is always going to be streaked with a certain schizophrenia, a certain imperfection and hypocrisy because the world is as it is," he said.
...and your point is???
Uh huh. With the remarkable information-gathering ability of American technology, a bunch of backward hankie-heads is better informed about OUR culture than we are about theirs. With mass media controlled strictly by their governments, with illiteracy in the high double digits, with Stone Age technology and religious bigotry pervasive in their society, their view of us is realistic, while ours is ill informed.
Sure, Achmed. Have another smoke.
A bit confused here. Are you referring to "They" as the White House or the rest of the world?
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
Oh, the rest of the world, definitely. The White House is the one filled with people smart enough to say "Oh, the hell with this" and just start ignoring all the other nations that want to subjugate us.
This thread reminds me of the scene from the movie "The Wind and the Lion" where Teddy Roosevelt is discussing the bear he just killed on a camping trip. To paraphrase: "The U.S. is like the Grizzly bear... we are the master of the forrest... people may fear us ...they may respect us ...but, like the Grizzly, we live our lives alone and the rest of the world will never love us."
Abandoning treaties....sorry, ain't buy it. The constitution requires that the Senate can only ratify treaties, the President can approve, but even his signature on the document does not make it the law of the land.
So let's see if any of the emphasized were ever ratified by the U.S. Senate:
Global Warming: I suppose this article is referring to the Kyoto Protocol. Vice President Gore sat in on the final discussions in Japan. He personally approved of it, I believe Clintoon did sign onto it with the stated qualification that even so, it would never pass in the Senate (Down in flames 99-0).
Arms Control: Still not specific, but obviously means the SALT Treaty we had with the Soviet Union (A form of government that ruled over much of the land mass of Asia). As this treaty was ratified and existed between two countries, one of which does not exist anymore, it isn't enforceable. It would take the two signing parties to tangle, but there is now only one. Treaties exist between governments, not between one government, a non-existing government and uninvolved opinions.
International War Crimes Court: Not aware that there is such an entity. I am aware of the International Criminal Court, but it is hardly the same thing. Comparing the ICC the a War Crime Court is comparing apples to oranges. The ICC will look at any complaint from any faction, and as I understand the mandate it has, take action if it sees merit to the allegation for whatever reasons, but only if the country/government hosting the alleged criminal doesn't try and convict the person or group. The reasons given for removing the signature of the United States from the originating document was that the laws the ICC was set up to enforce were unwritten, conceptually blurry at best and subject to change at any point in time by the whim of individuals not elected, but appointed, to do so.
So, all this caterwauling to me seems to be the extension of the jealousy of nations, peoples of less advanced societies, and the just plain ignorant to lambaste the US at every turn. They are getting quite good at manipulating media and distorting the perception of world views. But, if you were to ask even the most bellicose critic of the US where in the world would he prefer to live and raise his family, the answer would be almost unanimous "in America".
Jealousy, just stoopid jealousy. Blame us for holding theirselves back developementally, yet rejecting the basic principles that allowed the United States to become the moral and industrial powerhouse that it is.
Surveys in Arab nations...
Outside a dilapidated housing project in Giza, a bustling suburb of Cairo, Mohammed Attia, 27, recalls...
In the Muslim world...
...said Najam Sethi, chief editor of the Daily Times in Lahore, Pakistan
well at least he quoted reasonable unbiased people to prepare this article
(/sarcasm)
We cannot reason with people retarded enough to belive such nonsence. Arabs as a people are the stupidest on the face of the planet.
Sorry to any individual Arabs reading this, but even you must admit that this is true.
This is true. Our leaders have embarrassed us in this respect. If the economy goes into the toilet, the Bush administration will be partially responsible due to the idiotic tarrifs and farm subsidies.
It is ironic, but tarrifs like this hurt our economy much more than others. It is a self inflicted injury.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.