The State Department has invited about 20 scholars to a two-day conference in September to hear their views on why the United States seems so unpopular around the world.
Richard Boucher, a department spokesman, said the conference - on September 5 and 6 - was the culmination of a project that looked at anti-Americanism in Europe, Russia and in the Muslim world, and how it could be addressed.
Critics say the main causes for anti-Americanism are US policies, especially its support for Israel. Unilateral steps on arms control and the environment have also contributed.
The British author Salman Rushdie said in The Washington Post on Wednesday that the conference should recognise that the Bush Administration had made a series of foreign policy miscalculations in the past year.
“After the brief flirtation with consensus-building during the Afghan operation, the United States’s brazen return to unilateralism has angered even its natural allies,” he said. A unilateral attack on Iraq would radicalise the Arab world and could bring about an Islamic jihad, he added.
comment: what another waste of time and money its obvious to the entire planet why america is dispised latin america abused and raped of its resources, africa looted and support given to various dictators, middle east pro terrorist israel and pro dictators, asia korea kept divided taiwan vs china kept on the burner and not to mention afghan and the war on islam!
For once I agree with you Saif. What a waste of time and money. It is clear that all we have to do is educate the rest of the world so that their false perceptions can be dispelled.
Too many people carry around these idiotic notions that the US has raped and abused Latin America of its natural resources, looted Africa, kept Korea divided, fomented tension between Taiwan and China, carried on a war against Islam, etc., etc., etc.
While the task will be difficult because of the high illiteracy rate among those who hate America, we could probably dissolve some of the misconceptions with simple picture books.
The Arab League and Muslim leaders have a much bigger task on their hands. Many may be annoyed by the US because of its policies, but policies can and will change. Islamophobia will be much more difficult to reverse. You should woory about keeping your own house in order. We get the point that you detest the US, and none of us is losing any sleep over it.
I think the reality lies somewhere between the initial post and what you said. When even european countries with high literacy rates and democratic systems and free press etc start questioning some actions, then one must evaluate one's actions. Its a hard thing to do, but no one is right 100% of the time. Not UK, not USA, not Burkina Faso and/or Lesotho.
It's a matter of leadership. Europeans willingly and circumstantially are impotent in doing anything outside their respective countries. The games/rules of engagement have been pre-empted by realities of terrorism and the europeans are ill-equipped to handle it. To the dismay of the europeans and others, the only power in the world that can do, not just say, but do what it sets out to do from a military, economic and social point of view is America. This is the reality. The first eveidence of this impotence was in the balkans and it is coming through again in Iraq.
This is not to say that US is right all the time. But more often than not it has the right scope, will and delivery mechanisms to achieve the ends.
As far as Burkhina faso, Lesotho, India, china or Pakistan go....they don't count.
I think the reality lies somewhere between the initial post and what you said. When even european countries with high literacy rates and democratic systems and free press etc start questioning some actions, then one must evaluate one's actions. Its a hard thing to do, but no one is right 100% of the time. Not UK, not USA, not Burkina Faso and/or Lesotho.
[/QUOTE]
Fraudia:
I think there is a difference between being unpopular and/or "despised" as Saif says and having your actions "questioned" as you say. By and large, the US and its people are not "unpopular" and/or "despised" amongst the peoples and governments of the EU. Friends are free to question and challenge friends from time to time without things degenerating into unpopularity and being despised.
I think Chaltahai is right when he says that many times US actions are questioned among the US' European friends out of a sense of their own impotency. This is not much different than the feelings of a little brother who is always watching his bigger and stronger brother excelling above his own accomplishments.
I'm sure that whatever committe of scholars is getting together to look at America's unpopularity abroad will not be focusing on what the Europeans think of us.
I'm sure that whatever committe of scholars is getting together to look at America's unpopularity abroad will not be focusing on what the Europeans think of us.
[/QUOTE]
Read the post again...They will be looking at why Europeans are not happy either.
Once again, no one can be 100% right all the time. Is US mature enough to admit that it can be wrong and has been wrong? Easy to say oh they dislike us, they are jealous of us and they are scared of us..its harder to have an honest self assessment.
and as far as the word "questioned" goes, friends can question friends..questioning someone does not mean you hate them, but that you are nto comfortable with what theya re doing, or you are not sure its the right approach. You used the sdame word and said exactly the same thing that I was saying.
and as far as questioning goes, I would be much more concerned with when friends question than when foes do, even though that should be assessed as well to see if it has any merit
I guess I was wrong about the committee focusing on EU countries as well. Which brings me back to my level of agreement with Saif: i.e. what a waste of time and money. :)
Also, Fraudia, I agree with you that one should pay more attention and be more concerned with criticism offered by your friends. In our personal lives, we all must take in as much information and opinions as we can; but ultimately, we must make our own decisions and take responsibility for what we decide. Same with countries. Throughout history, many people have made decisions and taken actions that were contrary to the conventional wisdom and/or against the tide of opinion. Same with countries. Sometimes, history has proven the contrarian correct and sometimes not.
If the US makes a decision about attacking Iraq alone, for instance, and against the opinions of everyone else in the world, well...so be it. Maybe history will prove our action right and maybe prove it wrong. I'd rather make my own decision against the opinions of everyone else and be proven wrong than not act, against my own better judgment, because of my friends opinion only to find my friends were wrong.
myvoice I agree. one must do what one's own final decision is. It is good to listen to the feedback, positive or negative of others, especially friends because they have my interest in mind as well. I may make a decision that goes against their input and feedback, but its one of those things where I would expect my friends to also tell me if I am not seeing something.
However whether in personal relationships or when we are talking world politics, if a friend is not convinced that what you are doing is right..pay attention, dont call the person a chicken or impotent, what you consider chicken may be considered as risk averse by this person. Who knows what is the right approach, as u said, only the future can tell who was right but we dont know the future and I would rather have my friends inform me, warn me and educate me so I can make a more educated decision fully knowing the risks of my actions...and whether it turns out that my decision was correct or incorrect, I would know that I had as much information as possible before makign my decision and I did not have too many "yes men" around me.
comment: half of Saif's comment's are attributable to communist threats in South America, Africa, and the Far and Near East. Many South American economies became stronger with US involvement. The biggest impediment to broad benefit was the aristocratic strata holding most of the land and riches. This was a leftover from Spanish influence, not the US. This illustrates a distinction between Old Europe and the United States. Taiwan and South Korea and North Viet Nam were all nations the US sought to keep free of totalitarian rule. Both South Korea and South Viet Nam were invaded by Communist aggression, counter to agreements made between the US and Soviet forces at the end of WWII.
Afganistan was in a sorry state before 9/11. A quarter century of warfare involving serious destruction has left it in a bad state. US and international intervention is needed and in some ways owed to this country. The current flow of funds and misuse of funds already there does not help matters. If the Arabs had not been so obstinate and other countries not played power politics, the Palestinians would have had a better, recent past. Not all blame can be placed on the Israelis for the situation.
The international forces in Afganistan do not appear to be an example of impotencey. Europe had to go through an ideological transformation after WWII. This was fostered by the US at the time. The things Europe stands for are what America used to stand for. Chaltahai's personality places great emphasis on power projection. He may have carried over his caste mentality from the old country. The comment regarding other small nations as not counting is not proper form. It is chauvanistic, to say the least.
I think the problem that many people on this BB face is that they think that foreign policy in the US is made and derived from henchmen and yesmen. US IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP. This is not Pakistan.
Nothing gets railroaded without deliberations. We learn our lessons from mistakes in the past and make better decisions in the future. The deliberations on Iraq are even going on publicly within the Reagan and Bush (the elder) republicans.
Europe is an impotent and irrelevant who has always been behind the curve since 1917. The gap in economics, defense and leaership is so vast between the US and the european entities that they are in search of their role around the world and we know what it is. (.....awaits for sarcastic comments from the regular...)
Britain and the rest of Europe were somewhat strong after WWII, into the '70's at least.
The descisions on Afganistan and Iraq/Iran were made during the Reagan administration without much public debate. Bush is more open in this area. He gets credit from me on that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
By and large, the US and its people are not "unpopular" and/or "despised" amongst the peoples and governments of the EU. Friends are free to question and challenge friends from time to time without things degenerating into unpopularity and being despised.
Myvoice when has it been the last time you visited europe come to germany or france and i will show you how popular america is.
Is'nt it 60 - 70 % of american who don't even have a passport how the do they know what the rest of the world feels about them when they sit in there castle called usa and declare war on third world contries while treating south america and africa like a supermarket!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
I think the problem that many people on this BB face is that they think that foreign policy in the US is made and derived from henchmen and yesmen. US IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP. This is not Pakistan....)
[/QUOTE]
chanda if you are referring to my "yesmen" I was referring to countries going along with other countries and in a larger context of how friends should be..i.e. point out flaws in approaches and not just agree for teh sake of agreeing.
ANd chanda this is not a friendship of equals. Europe hasn't the capability or the balls to take care of their own backyard. US will listen, but frankly we don't need them. That is a reality that europeans are finally getting used to and haven't devised a strategy to deal with. I can listen to a friend if he has a better plan on approaching a problem (better as in tried and tested). Unfotunately, the europeans have none.
The Europeans do benefit from American military strength in multuple ways in the present time. But they have the right to voice opinion regarding possible US unilateralism. Basically, the old guard Republicans, some out of office, do the same. Mr. Armey's comment about Iraq's sovereignity came as a surprise. He has show himself to have standards stemming from real American ideals. He will not seek reelection, either.
If Africa and South America were actually America's supermarket, they would be better off and our farmers would be in worse shape than they are now. The export, grow or die mentality has created another imbalance.
I don’t think American foreign policy planning gives two hoots about its ‘friends’ in Europe. The US is standing on the precipice of world dictatorship and needs a little reassurance from time to time that it’s not simply acting on self-interest. (which in my opinion it, most definitely is).
Being the worlds largest consumer of a product that is produced predominantly in nations outside of the direct control of the US leaves it little choice in imposing it’s will as it sees fit.
Until this sense of self importance is laid to rest the US will continue to justify its actions abroad as ‘looking after global security’.
The Europeans look to the US to keep the status quo in global politics. The fear is not of a rise of militant states but of an ever more self-important war mongering US.