HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.rockfordinstitute.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST011402.htm Monday, January 14, 2002 AMERICA'S IMAGE AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 by Srdja Trifkovic In the aftermath of September 11 America seems to enjoy an overall positive image abroad, according to a comprehensive survey of the decision-making elites around the world. At the same time most global opinion leaders warn that people in their countries hold negative perceptions of U.S. power. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts survey published on December 19, 2001 (http://www.people-press.org/1219012.htm), elites perceive that there is a comparably high level of support for America's "war on terrorism." At the same time large numbers of people in other countries think that U.S. policies around the world-and especially in the Middle East-were a major cause of the September 11 attacks. Even in Western Europe, 36% of opinion leaders say most or many people in their country believe U.S. policies were to blame; that figure rises to 71% in Eastern Europe and Russia, and to over eighty percent in the Middle East. Even more widespread among ordinary people, according to elites, is the view that it is good that Americans know what it is like to be vulnerable. More than two-thirds of opinion leaders say that many people in their countries think so, ranging to a high of 76% in Asia. It is disheartening, though, that the survey attributes positive feelings toward the United States to the perception that America is the land of economic opportunity-not to its supposed ideals, nor to its defense of democracy, human rights and open markets (forget the history, arts, or literature). An overwhelming majority of those questioned-two-thirds of opinion leaders in Latin America and three-quarters in Eurasia and the Middle East-think that economic opportunity is what people in their countries like America, and-presumably-why so many of them want to come here. The high regard for the United States is also due to the popularity of American consumer goods and technology. Dissatisfaction with the United States is largely attributable to how America acts in the world. Particularly in many European countries, including Russia, opinion leaders perceive a good deal of resentment of the United States' might in the world among citizens of their countries, as well as unhappiness with the dominance of U.S. culture, corporations, and the belief that U.S. policies may have contributed to the growing gap between rich and poor nations. Distinct from these concerns is the criticism of U.S. policies in the Middle East. The impression that U.S. policies and actions in the world were a major cause of the terrorist attacks is strongly related to the perception (1) that the United States is overreacting in its response, and (2) a general dislike of U.S. support for Israel. Not surprisingly, public dissatisfaction with America's Middle East policy is perceived to be highest in largely Islamic countries. Citizens of those countries closest to the current conflicts-presumable allies in Pakistan, Egypt, and Uzbekistan, as well as the NATO "partner," Turkey-all have a strongly unfavorable view of U.S. policy toward Israel, and the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks. However, these same Islamic states express less concern over American power in general than do citizens of other parts of the world. The Europeans, by contrast, have the greatest distaste for American power in general, and least opposition to American policy in the Middle East in particular. The Russians, however, are perceived as being unhappy with the American hegemony in general as well as its handling of Middle Eastern affairs. On the whole, about four-in-ten opinion leaders outside the U.S. say that many or most people in their country believe that the United States is overreacting to the terrorist attacks. This opinion is most prevalent in the Middle East/conflict area (62%), but a majority in Eastern Europe and Russia also say that many or most people hold this view. APPENDIX: WHAT THE PAPERS SAY The ambivalence of foreign opinion is reflected in the end-of-year commentary in major daily newspapers around the world. The Wall Street Journal's London equivalent, the Financial Times, is reliably gung-ho. It carried a report by Gerard Baker, its Washington correspondent, on December 27, 2001, that emphasized "enduring optimism" of most Americans and their renewed faith in their country: Indeed, the paradox of 2001 is that, in seeking to bring the United States lower, its enemies have succeeded only in building it up. This is not empty political rhetoric. It is an accurate picture of American self-regard today. It would be absurd to suggest that the rest of the world has embraced everything that America stands for in the wake of September 11. The details of how you organize a free society will be quibbled over for centuries yet. However, the war on terrorism has set in stark relief the really important political choices the human race confronts. In its way, September 11, 2001 and its aftermath could prove as significant as November 1989 in its consequences in the global struggle for freedom. In pondering the "Consequences Of The September 11 Attacks" in France's Les Echos (January 10, 2002), Stephane Dupont opined that George W. Bush has been transformed after a year in the White House, "a true leader able to rally members of the political class to his cause in a rare united front: "Unskillful up to then on the diplomatic scene, the former Texas governor also succeeded in the amazing feat of bringing together in a few weeks' time a broad international coalition against terrorism." But Herve Kempf, writing in Le Monde (January 8), warned that the attacks "did not change America's position on dealing with major world issues" and its unilateralist approach to their resolution. This view, widespread throughout Europe, was shared by Pascal Boniface of the Institute for International Strategic Relations, who commented in the leftist Liberation (January 7): Americans are interpreting their military victory as a triumph. It reinforces their belief that they are almost always right and that they can always impose their point of view. Now that it has been reassured by a victory that turned out to be easier than expected, it has once again become sure of itself, very sure in fact . . . The events, far from proving its weakness have proven [its] superiority. Its victory has reinforced America's unilateralism and its desire to impose its vision . . . America has learned nothing and could face other rude awakenings. Jean-Pierre Ferrier lamented the demise of Europe in Le Figaro (January 4), and its incompetence in the military sector manifested in three wars initiated and led by the United States in the past ten years: Iraq presented the opportunity to verify the individual faithfulness of the members of the Alliance. Kosovo showed the minimal role played by European allies whose participation the Pentagon considered as a weakening factor militarily but nevertheless diplomatically useful. Afghanistan served to summarize the situation: The allies have the obligation to participate in missions decided by the United States following the guidelines determined by Washington. In each instance the rules are the same: At most, the Europeans have the right to information, or to the impression that they have been kept informed. The same sentiment is echoed east of the Rhine. Malte Lehming maintained in an editorial in centrist Tagesspiegel of Berlin (January 4): Washington's desire for invulnerability was already part of the discussion about missile defense. Terrorism has not reduced this desire; it has made it stronger. Whether in Somalia, Sudan, the Philippines or Iraq, the United States will not give up its fight against various threats any time soon. In addition, the Bush administration will generally act alone in these matters. Success in Afghanistan has encouraged those military strategists who view coalitions as obstacles. Anyone in Europe who had hoped that 'unrestricted solidarity' with the Americans would mean the chance of gaining more influence is likely to be disappointed. All of this will put tremendous pressure on transatlantic relations. In Russia Sovetskaya Rossiya's Vasiliy Safronchuk reflected this view on December 29 with his view that there have been no qualitative changes inside Russia or in its relations with the West since September 11: the current regime, as Yeltsin in his time, is wooing the West, hoping for Russia to be recognized as a partner, but that is not in line with those who seek global hegemony: But the Americans have been trying in every way to hide their true intentions, disguising them as fighting against international terrorism. The United States' attempts to drag Russia into the Gold Billion's coalition to stand up to the rest of the world are really disturbing. It is surprising how easily Putin fell for the antiterrorist trap Bush set up for him. He readily joined the U.S. action against Afghanistan and used his influence to get Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to pitch in and offer their bases for the U.S. aviation and airborne troops. The ungrateful Washington responded by declaring its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty . . . In effect, Putin has had Russia bonded with the U.S. war chariot in a crusade against all those who oppose American global hegemony. In Belgium, diplomatic correspondent Mia Doornaert argued in the Flamish-language daily De Standaard (1/3) that "America does not feel accountable to anyone about the goals of its future operations": It insulted Putin by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. Moreover, the United States worried friend and foe by talking about possible attacks against Iraq. That obvious unilateralism is a strange result of "9/11"-the date that should have made the US realize that even the mightiest nation does not live on an island. In the neighboring Holland the Trouw's editorial of December 24 maintained that in the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan the international coalition against terrorism is creaking because the U.S. is being suspected of wanting to bomb other countries: Furthermore the United States is being reproached, and not without reason, that in the area of international agreements and treaties, they are dealing as opportunistically and arrogantly with the world as they before September 11. And finally, this American administration is doing much too little to attempt to take the sting out of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, a conflict that in whatever way contributes to the hate and jealously in the Arabic and Muslim world with regard to everything which the U.S. stands for. Thus apparently nothing has changed since the eleventh of September. . . . And that is a pity, because terrorism is far from eradicated in this world, and every momentum to deal with it and to deny it material and emotional base should be grasped. The tone of much Middle Eastern commentary was much harsher and on the whole rather gloomy. The most respected daily newspaper in the Arab world, Cairo's Al Ahram, commented on the last day of the old year: The Arab world has never suffered such horrible setbacks-in all its issues-as in 2001. This started with the arrival of President Bush and the election of Sharon in Israel. Arabs have shown total inability to make predictions about the new American administration. Arab naivety reached the point that some of them even believed Bush's background in the oil industry and his father's old relations...could make American policies more sympathetic to Arabs and less biased toward Israel. But events have proven the opposite to be the case. . . . The Arab world witnessed no change in either thinking or policies according to the new changes. They have failed to rearrange their ranks, reconcile belligerent parties, and emerge from the tunnel of empty exaggerations to realistic, effective policies. . . . Naturally then, the Middle East reached an impasse with the first American shock [on September 11]; Israel kidnapped the Palestinian issue under the excuse of fighting terrorism. Al Ahram's columnist Gamal Zayda wrote (Dec. 30) that Arabs face heavy challenges: The Arab world is accused of exporting terrorism, clashing with the Christian West, being incapable of coping with the liberal democratic world, and providing the climate for religious fascism. . . . Some people have not realized that most precepts crumbled after September 11; the world and the West changed but Arabs have not. . . . These challenges require a broad dialogue in the Arab world to create a formula for agreement with the modern world which allows us to be part of the new world agenda: i.e. applying democracy, opening the way for freedom of expression. . . . The goal is to block some extremist conservative powers in the American political system which want to use the American military prowess to realize their purpose and allow the terrorist Israeli prime minister to destroy the Palestinian people. In Saudi Arabia, Jeddah-based Okaz pondered on December 23 the new regional landscape: The negative American domination reached its peak after the collapse of its major competitor, the former Soviet Union. But fate has punished those who wished for USSR collapse and praised America out of ignorance. These people now say: "Uncle Sam is not any better than the Red Bear." . . . Sharon came to destroy the concept of the peace process between Arabs and Israelis. Perhaps all these events contributed to the Sept. 11 attacks, but they gave Bush his political gain. It gave him a chance to exercise his military domination and launch his missiles regardless of the effects of such actions on innocent civilians. . . . It is ironic that those who attacked America out of hatred and to destroy its power, gave Bush increased popularity within his country. A benefit Bush would have never dreamed of getting on his own. In Bahrain Fawzia Rasheed sounded a note of doom in semi-independent Akhbar Al-Khalij on January 5, when he wrote that "America is not aware that its war against terrorism today will mark the beginning of its end because if the nations are silent now they will not be in the long term." Copyright 2002, www.ChroniclesMagazine.org 928 N. Main St., Rockford, IL 61103 ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
