Views on America

We have been abroad from just a few months after September 11 until now, when it seems only like days until America attacks Iraq. While the American press is available to us (e.g. www.cnn.com or www.foxnews.com), we also have been able to watch in the world press, and especially to talk with locals throughout the world. There is a gap between the views presented to Americans through the US press, and the rest of the world. Here is an attempt to bridge that gap.

The world was horrified after September 11, with great outpourings of deep sympathy. The act was revolting and unconscionable. Deep and sincere anguish was felt worldwide.

But the world does not see everything through one event. Europe has fought terrorism on its soil for two decades. Tanzanian had hundreds killed when the embassy was blown up. Israel and Palestine trade violence nearly daily. India suffers from Islamic attacks in Kashmir, and even attacks on temples and the parliament building in Delhi. Terrorism has victims globally. To much of the world, September 11 was part of a larger mosaic of terrorist acts, while the US press has instead portrayed 9/11 as a singular event since it is the one that affected the US directly.

There are many different opinions about the US throughout the world. Some people are obsessively in love everything American, and others abhor anything American. In most countries, there is a mix of opinion. But the overall trends are instructive.

Overall world opinion of the USA has been quite positive. A survey for the Economist reports that 35 of 42 countries have a majority of people with positive feelings for the USA. After September 11 this number increased, but the troubling news is that the events of 2002 have erased all of that sentiment and world opinion has dropped substantially. In most countries, 50-60% of the population retain positive feelings about the USA, but these numbers declined down 4-13% from just a couple of years ago, and continue to fall.

Europeans generally feel just as positive about the USA as with other European countries (62-65% positive for USA, UK, France and Germany). Interestingly, Americans are a bit more discriminating with high marks for UK (76%) and low for France (55%). More illuminating, Europeans strongly support the European Union (70%), but not Israel (37%), while Americans are much less positive about the EU and more positive about Israel (55%). (Again, these statistics are from mid-late 2002, so do not reflect the results of recent French-bashing in the US press. They also do not reflect the more recent effect on world opinion of the increasingly defiant attitude of the US, such as countermanding the UN resolutions on Iraq.)

Are these differences just the result of local politics, or underlying cultural differences? A recent study by the University of Wisconsin shed some light on the growing differences between the US and Europe. For decades, the University has tracked countries on two scales. One is the so-called Quality-of-Life, which measures the relative concern for basic survival versus issues such as free expression (and generally separates the developing world from the developed world). The other scale regards rationalism versus traditionalism, typified by strong nationalism or religious feelings.

Stated simply:

• Europe has a high Quality of Life, and is driven by rationality
• The USA has a high Quality of Life, and is driven by traditionalism (nationalism)
• The states of the former USSR and China have low Quality of Life, and are driven by rationality
• Africa, the mid-east and South America have low Quality of Life, and are driven by traditionalism (religion)

Increasingly, a gulf is widening between the USA and Europe regarding rationalism versus traditionalism (nationalism and religion). Europe is increasingly turning to international organizations to solve global problems (economic, political, environmental, and criminal), while the USA is withdrawing from these. Some examples of the differences:

To coordinate international political and humanitarian affairs, Europe strongly supports the UN; the USA refused to pay dues for a decade and now says the UN is becoming irrelevant.

To resolve international criminal cases, Europe strongly supports the new International Criminal Court, in which criminal political leaders such as Milosevic are tried; the USA has refused to support the ICC.

To resolve global environmental problems, Europe strongly backed the Kyoto protocols to stop global warming; the USA withdrew.

Europe more strongly supports the World Court for resolving economic disputes.

Another illuminating difference regards the threats perceived by Europeans versus Americans. The number one danger in the world, to Europeans, is religious and ethnic hatred. To Americans, it is nuclear proliferation. Europe reacts negatively when the passions of religion or nationalism mixed into politics, while the USA incorporates these with new zeal. Europe has suffered greatly from the irrationality of these forces in the last century and seeks to contain them. The USA sees them as the basis of a principled country and foreign policy, and argues that its policies are based on premises of human rights and freedom.

Europeans perceive that the USA is operating with a worldview more typical of the British Empire one or two centuries ago. During that period the Empire redrew national lines, installed or toppled governments, and exploited servile states economically. Many of the later problems in Africa, the mid-East and southern Asia can be traced directly to this period of British rule (and other European powers). By the middle of the 20th century, legitimate nation building replaced this imperial strategy and nation-states were born in Africa, South America, and Asia. Their development was thwarted by the cold war, where both superpowers supported despotic governments in the third world. With the fall of USSR has come a period of increasing good governance in much of the world (regrettably not much in Africa), and more international attention focused on issues of human rights and economic development.

However, the overwhelming European view is that the USA has turned away from that direction under Bush. Europe sees the new world order as fundamentally international and interconnected. They see war as avoidable through commitment to strong international organizations. The USA sees the new world order through its own nationalistic interests. This reflects the general knowledge of the population as well --Europeans generally have much more knowledge of the world and travel more extensively, while Americans tend to just follow American events. To an American, it is right and proper to focus on America first, while to a European it seems irresponsible that Americans take such little personal interest in how their government affects the lives of people throughout the globe, since they have such a huge impact.

Further surprises come by examining the surveys a bit more closely. The vast majority of people worldwide in 2002 felt that the planet is more secure with one superpower than with two, acknowledging the importance of America's military power. However, Americans will be surprised that a majority of the people of the world do not support the American ideas of democracy. Even in Europe, 42-45% disagree with American ideas on democracy, and this number plummets strongly in the developing world. Americans view themselves as the planet's savior, helping to install and preserve democracy. But the people of the world do not see it that way, and instead have their own ideas about the best forms of government. Their experience is that American ideas of democracy are very different outside the USA borders, where perceived US foreign policy supports dictators and kingdoms, undermines unfriendly democracies, and economically represses weaker competitors. They definitely look to America for help, but are looking for economic development, medical care and education, not for foreign intervention in their governments. A key point --they agree that bad local government is a huge obstacle to development, but they are much more willing to accept political intervention from international organizations such as the UN or ICC than from a superpower.

So what does this mean? As Americans we should learn from the European's warnings about the passions of nationalism and religious fervor. We need to become more aware of the needs and interests of the people of the rest of the world. Without heeding that caution and increasing our knowledge, we are too likely to see ourselves as the protector of the world but find the people we purport to benefit to be very hostile to our advances, and we will not understand why. We do have the ability, and even the responsibility, to define a new world order due to our sole superpower status. However, with such overwhelming power it does no good to continually remind others of it --instead we should be working graciously with others, realizing that a distinct disadvantage of such power is the inability to hear and understand others needs and points of view. And we cannot establish a new world order without taking into account those needs and viewpoints, at least not one that will be lasting without repeated conflict and suppression.