"Why do they hate us?" Much ink has been spilled over the last few years in attempts to answer that question. By contrast, not enough attention has been paid to what is, in some ways, a more perplexing conundrum: "Why don't they like us as much as they used to?"
The "they" in this latter question is our very, very closest allies. By this, I don't mean France or even Canada, democracies that are part of the Western alliance but have never particularly warmed to the idea of U.S. leadership, whether political or cultural. The French have always been huffy about NATO and downright nasty about Hollywood; the Canadians have actually formed their entire national identity around being "not-Americans." No, the more interesting question is why support for U.S. leadership has declined among our traditional friends: Britain, Poland, Germany, Italy, Holland.
Related in Slate
Jacob Weisberg
argued that "muddled thinking" from President Bush had "created a dangerous new cooperative dynamic among our enemies." Richard Morgan
offered a guided tour of anti-American sentiment in Turkey—"Allies aren't supposed to behave like this." Daniel Gross
asked how Europeans can consume more American goods than ever while they claim to dislike their country of origin so much. Katie Roiphe
reconsidered the long-leveled charges of "Anti-Americanism" against Graham Greene's
The Quiet American. Christopher Hitchens
assembled a definition of "anti-American," one nuanced enough to include both Pat Robertson and the European right.
And it has declined—drastically. Since 2002, according to the newest edition of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Trends survey, support for "U.S. leadership in world affairs"—that's whether they want to follow our political lead, not whether they think we're nice—has plunged by 30 percentage points in Germany, 26 percentage points in Italy, 24 percentage points in Poland, 23 percentage points in Holland, and 22 percentage points in Britain. More generally speaking, support for U.S. leadership, which was at 64 percent across Europe in 2002, is now at 36 percent, though that figure includes the stroppier countries, too.
I realize, of course, that there have been a million of these polls in recent years, and I also realize that they sometimes hide as much as they conceal. A couple of years ago, I wrote about one set of data that broke down these numbers by education and income. As it turned out, there were strong pockets of "pro-Americanism," even in the most "anti-American" countries. In Europe, for example, it turned out that the upwardly mobile felt more warmly about American power than the establishment. Generally speaking, people confuse "anti-Americanism" with "anti-global capitalism," those who dislike one generally disliking the other, as well.
Yet these latest numbers appear, according to Ron Asmus of the German Marshall Fund, to apply across the board. They also look particularly grim when compared with other famous historical low points. Even in 1982, when British and German cities were convulsed with anti-Reagan, anti-Trident missile, anti-Cold War demonstrations, support for U.S. leadership across the continent was far higher than it is now.
Most curious of all, though, is the fact that our friends' faith in us has weakened just as their perceptions of potential threats are growing ever more similar to ours. True, more Europeans worry about global warming than we do, but the difference (85 percent vs. 70 percent) is not as great as one would think. And we all worry about everything else—international terrorism, a nuclear Iran, global epidemics—in almost equal measure.
This last point strikes me as most interesting, for it indicates that what our closest friends really dislike is not our traditional pushiness, our violent movies, or even our current president (though they don't like him much, either), but our incompetence. A full third blame the perceived decline of the transatlantic alliance on the "mismanagement of Iraq." Not the invasion of Iraq—the "mismanagement" of Iraq. Which makes sense. If you're really worried about Iran, do you want to put your faith in the United States, the country that bungled Iraq? If you really care about Islamic fundamentalism, do you want to be led by the country that, distracted by Iraq, failed to predict the return of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
There are other factors too, of course. As I (and many others) have written before, we've been bad at looking after our allies over the past five years, bad at thanking them or compensating them for military contributions to Iraq, bad at maintaining very basic pieces of public diplomacy, like student-exchange programs. Still, NATO will not fall apart just because our president has been rude to his German counterpart or a few Britons don't get scholarships. NATO will fall apart, however, if its American leaders are perceived as inept. And even if the surge works, even if the roadside bombs vanish, inept is a word that will always be used about the Iraqi invasion.
And yes, it does matter. There was, in fact, a "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, at least to start with. There wouldn't be now, even though both the French and German leaders are more positive about the United States than their predecessors, even though most of our allies worry more about the Middle East than ever. Countries that would once have supported U.S. foreign policy on principle, simply out of solidarity or friendship, will now have to be cajoled, or paid, to join us. Count that—along with the lives of soldiers and civilians, the dollars and equipment—as another cost of the war. No one wants to be on the losing team.
Anne Applebaum is a Washington Post
and Slate columnist. Her most recent book is Gulag: A History. Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty.
Remarks from the Fray:
Anne Applebaum is mostly right about the current low opinion of US competence, however, I think that she has missed the elephant in the room. It was said long ago that the US military was an organisation designed by geniuses to be run by idiots, and this is even more true of our government itself. As an American resident in the UK, most of the criticism I have seen has been directed at the US government.
What has really damaged the US reputation for competence is Katrina. The failure to put the National Guard on standby as the hurricane approached, the failure even to attempt to organize and evacuation, the failure to call, before it hit or for some time afterwards, for federal emergency assistance, and the failure to manage the recovery effort afterwards, not to mention the failure of successive state and federal administrations to adequately maintain the flood defenses of New Orleans are a record of local, state, and national incompetence second to none.
There is no more truly American slogan than 'the difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer'. It is the recognition that not only is this attitude characteristic of the US in general, but that we deliver on the attitude, much more than our sheer size and weight as a nation, which has, in the past, caused people around the world to look to us for leadership in all walks of life. While our reputation for competence has been severely damaged by a series of bungled situations in recent years, most comment I have seen in Britain is more nuanced than to think the US in general is now hopelessly incompetent, or even that most US citizens are so. What would do most to restore the reputation of the United States in the world would be a change of leadership, as it is clearly seen that it is the leadership, not the troops, who have failed.
--RupertL3
(To reply, click here.)
Living in Europe, I see a continent in decline. The reasons for the decline are diverse, but this piece in the Economist helps understand it. It describes Europe's plans for global influence: 'Exporting "our rules and standards around the world" was one source of European power' says EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson.
A continent that hopes to lead through bureaucratic innovation is doomed, I'd argue. It's pathetic and shows that Europe has quit. I wonder what the generals in Burma make of the new EU wheat directives.
The Middle East disapproves of the US, but it doesn't have a free media. Nor does much of Asia. This doesn't seem to matter to the people who hype-up these surveys of anti-Americanism - a fact which says more about them than either the surveyed countries or the US.
The US remains the leader in almost every major field of human endeavour, though particularly on the scientific, corporate, and military fronts. It produces more than half the academic research published every year. It scoops far more Nobel prizes than Europe.
Given these facts, why shouldn't the US merely trust its own competence rather than taking lectures from Europeans?
--GreenwichJ
(To reply, click here.)
Indeed, the nation as a whole has been incompetent, incompetent of being a united nation. Not the administration alone, not the contractors alone, have been inept. Much of this simply lies at the feet of division. When one fraction of the nation is busy making life as difficult as possible for the rest of the nation, clumsiness is an inevitable result.
It doesn't matter whether the challenge was the right one or not, whether it was a good decision or based on half-truths or misunderstood/prejudiced intelligence, it really doesn't matter what we have been trying to do or why we have been trying to do it. We may be trying to reduce drug use, eliminate HIV, establish democracy in Iraq, create a transportation system that uses less energy and produces less pollution, eliminating criminal aliens... it doesn't matter, we are all stepping on each other's toes. Lawyers are deep in the muddle, politicians, the press, they all spend their time obstructing the work of others; calumny and accusations, an attempt to derail any success and trumpet any hardships, the willingness to forgo any benefit of cooperation to pull the other person away from their goal.
Of course no nation can trust the US as a friend. At best they can only get half the country, and when they do, they invariably end up with an enemy at least as strong. Colombia, Poland, Israel - as soon as one side tries to support the nation, the other side tries to fight it.
We need a clear victory within our nation before we can hope for national survival.
--BenK
(To reply, click here.)
I think many people feel that America can now longer be TRUSTED, and that makes many of us very uncomfortable. We observed with disgust the manner in which the French were treated with breathtaking distain by members of Congress, and US media pundits, because they took a different view on Iraq and the 'war on terror' (and who was right?). This frankly juvenile dismissal of a long time friend because they dared to disagree was troubling to say the least. It demonstrated (at least to me) that the US will turn on an ally for the most innocuous reason and will not entertain debate on the most vital of issues, which involve matters of life and death. The message I took from this is that the US, not as an enemy but as a friend and ally, should be approached with caution because it is untrustworthy and unpredictable, and will dump you like a two dollar whore if that suits its own geopolitical agenda.
--Skanrat
(To reply, click here.)
(10/3)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Hitchens: The "War on Terrorism" Didn't Cause the Fort Hood Shootings
Enter Slate's Write-Like-Sarah Palin Contest
Whoa! The House Health Care Bill Is Actually Less Expensive Than the Senate's.
Like Israel but Colder: The Jewish Autonomous Region of Russia
Why Everyone Should Read When Everything Changed
Spitzer: How Tim Geithner Was Fleeced by Wall Street
Remarks from the Fray:
Anne Applebaum is mostly right about the current low opinion of US competence, however, I think that she has missed the elephant in the room. It was said long ago that the US military was an organisation designed by geniuses to be run by idiots, and this is even more true of our government itself. As an American resident in the UK, most of the criticism I have seen has been directed at the US government.
What has really damaged the US reputation for competence is Katrina. The failure to put the National Guard on standby as the hurricane approached, the failure even to attempt to organize and evacuation, the failure to call, before it hit or for some time afterwards, for federal emergency assistance, and the failure to manage the recovery effort afterwards, not to mention the failure of successive state and federal administrations to adequately maintain the flood defenses of New Orleans are a record of local, state, and national incompetence second to none.
There is no more truly American slogan than 'the difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer'. It is the recognition that not only is this attitude characteristic of the US in general, but that we deliver on the attitude, much more than our sheer size and weight as a nation, which has, in the past, caused people around the world to look to us for leadership in all walks of life. While our reputation for competence has been severely damaged by a series of bungled situations in recent years, most comment I have seen in Britain is more nuanced than to think the US in general is now hopelessly incompetent, or even that most US citizens are so. What would do most to restore the reputation of the United States in the world would be a change of leadership, as it is clearly seen that it is the leadership, not the troops, who have failed.
--RupertL3
(To reply, click here.)
Living in Europe, I see a continent in decline. The reasons for the decline are diverse, but this piece in the Economist helps understand it. It describes Europe's plans for global influence: 'Exporting "our rules and standards around the world" was one source of European power' says EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson.
A continent that hopes to lead through bureaucratic innovation is doomed, I'd argue. It's pathetic and shows that Europe has quit. I wonder what the generals in Burma make of the new EU wheat directives.
The Middle East disapproves of the US, but it doesn't have a free media. Nor does much of Asia. This doesn't seem to matter to the people who hype-up these surveys of anti-Americanism - a fact which says more about them than either the surveyed countries or the US.
The US remains the leader in almost every major field of human endeavour, though particularly on the scientific, corporate, and military fronts. It produces more than half the academic research published every year. It scoops far more Nobel prizes than Europe.
Given these facts, why shouldn't the US merely trust its own competence rather than taking lectures from Europeans?
--GreenwichJ
(To reply, click here.)
Indeed, the nation as a whole has been incompetent, incompetent of being a united nation. Not the administration alone, not the contractors alone, have been inept. Much of this simply lies at the feet of division. When one fraction of the nation is busy making life as difficult as possible for the rest of the nation, clumsiness is an inevitable result.
It doesn't matter whether the challenge was the right one or not, whether it was a good decision or based on half-truths or misunderstood/prejudiced intelligence, it really doesn't matter what we have been trying to do or why we have been trying to do it. We may be trying to reduce drug use, eliminate HIV, establish democracy in Iraq, create a transportation system that uses less energy and produces less pollution, eliminating criminal aliens... it doesn't matter, we are all stepping on each other's toes. Lawyers are deep in the muddle, politicians, the press, they all spend their time obstructing the work of others; calumny and accusations, an attempt to derail any success and trumpet any hardships, the willingness to forgo any benefit of cooperation to pull the other person away from their goal.
Of course no nation can trust the US as a friend. At best they can only get half the country, and when they do, they invariably end up with an enemy at least as strong. Colombia, Poland, Israel - as soon as one side tries to support the nation, the other side tries to fight it.
We need a clear victory within our nation before we can hope for national survival.
--BenK
(To reply, click here.)
I think many people feel that America can now longer be TRUSTED, and that makes many of us very uncomfortable. We observed with disgust the manner in which the French were treated with breathtaking distain by members of Congress, and US media pundits, because they took a different view on Iraq and the 'war on terror' (and who was right?). This frankly juvenile dismissal of a long time friend because they dared to disagree was troubling to say the least. It demonstrated (at least to me) that the US will turn on an ally for the most innocuous reason and will not entertain debate on the most vital of issues, which involve matters of life and death. The message I took from this is that the US, not as an enemy but as a friend and ally, should be approached with caution because it is untrustworthy and unpredictable, and will dump you like a two dollar whore if that suits its own geopolitical agenda.
--Skanrat
(To reply, click here.)
(10/3)