My essay on anti-Americanism

Well, the job is +/- finished. Here’s my paper, SOC? Arthur? 🙂 Hand

I have to hand it in 17th january so I’m ahead of schedule. Please help me if you have something interresting to add because I think it’s a subject that will interrest many on the forum. It’s really an essay, not a historical article. Hence, more to the end you’ll probably find less facts and more, well, biased opinions 😀

Also a bonus for the longest post someone on the forum has written here so far!!!

———————————————————————–

COCA COLA OR WODKA?
Anti-Americanism in Europe

“They say that when good Americans die they go to Paris”, chuckled Sir Thomas, who had a large wardrobe of Humour’s cast-off clothes.
“Really! And where do bad Americans go when they die?” inquired the Duchess.
“They go to America”, murmered Lord Henry.
OSCAR WILD, The picture of Dorian Gray.

A quote which illustrates the way Europeans sometimes have looked/look at the US. When Oscar Wilde wrote his novel, most Europeans were not even aware of where the US was or stood for. A dandy like Wilde considered the Americans to be a barbaric version of the Englishman. Even though in more than hundred years the political situation has changed drastically, the same feeling lives on.

When we think about “American Foreign policy”, we have the tendency to place this in a European perspective. If you would ask the public opinion in Belgium, how they see America’s role in the world today, the majority will most likely see the United States as a country, which tries to dominate the world by imposing sanctions, triggering wars … Others see the US as a key ally, which saved us from both Nazism and Communism, and therefore, we should remain loyal. The debate is always seen as a “pro-contra” discussion among politicians and the public opinion. However, few try to understand what is driving America to the foreign policy it has today: harshly seen by European intellectuals as unilateral. “The fashionable source of anxiety in both Europe and Asia is whether America is becoming so different from everywhere else that it is becoming a problem for the world, not a solution. It’s not just a reckless Bush administration leading America astray, in other words. On this view, the United States is now inherently assertive and unilateralist and so can no longer be trusted to lead the world. Instead it should be feared.” We could read in an issue of the Economist some months ago.

I will try to analyse two words, namely “freedom” and “democracy”. If we hear them coming out of the mouth of George W. Bush, we think he’s either naïve or he’s just being a hypocrite. But maybe we ought to look at the historical meaning in US context of both words and we can end up one step closer to understanding America’s Foreign Policy.

The origins of FREEDOM & DEMOCRACY

During the nineteenth century and even at the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States were not even considered to be a state of any influence. Due the Monroe-doctrine, the US and Europe tried to stay out of each other’s business. And the Monroe-doctrine and I quote, said “In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It’s only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defences. With the movements in this hemisphere […]” Even in this case, the US does not want to involve into purely European politics, it just wants the European powers to stay out of the ‘western’ hemisphere. The plans for an Anglo-British alliance were rejected by John Quincy Adams, the secretary of state. One could argue this is unilateral behaviour, however, we should be careful. The US wanted to stay out of the European ‘game’ of Imperialism and Colonial Wars, maybe out of humanitarian reasons, but more likely out of self-preservation. In his “Proclamation of 1821” czar Alexander I announced that the American west-coast, reaching from Alaska to Oregon, is object of possible Russian colonisation. Anyway, the early US diplomacy may not have always been effective, we can’t blame it for being neither arrogant nor unilateral. Without going into details, we can say that during the nineteenth century US foreign policy was reluctant and mostly concerned with her own defence.

In the Proud Tower, according to Barbara Tuchman, America’s foreign policy started to change because of one book, The influence of sea power on History by Mahan. Even the Kaiser had a copy of it, and he ordered to spread the book on every German vessel. Not only popular among the military, also politicians were intrigued by it. Henry Cabot Lodge, senator of Massachusetts, Roosevelt’s friend and political sponsor, forcefully advocated and carried the case for a larger navy and American expansionism in the Senate. He used a map of the Pacific and pointed out every British naval base, marked by red crosses, while explaining Mahan’s ideas on the strategic importance of Hawai and Cuba. For the first time, the US wanted to expand further than the North-American continent. In 1898 American soldiers and sailors joined Cuban and Filipino rebels in a successful war against Spain.
Some regarded this as imperialism, others oppose the idea and say the US never got into imperialism. In my humble opinion, this is just a semantic discussion. Nevertheless, it did change the US foreign policy.
But, did this really affect the Europeans? The British had enough difficulties trying to get the Russians out of Afghanistan and the Dardanelles, and fighting the Boers in South Africa, France was busy trying to form a protectorate over Morocco and Egypt, and was even close to a war with Britain over this (Fachoda, 1898). Alfred von Tirpitz had his hands full building a “Hochseeflotte”. ‘Britannia rules the waves’ was not a certainty anymore. The United States did not interfere into European politics before. It played a role as a negotiator after the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905. At Portsmouth a treaty is signed. In 1906, the United States took part in the Algeciras conference. The purpose of this conference was to mediate between France and Germany over a Moroccan dispute.

Did this mean the end of the Monroe-doctrine? Although the United States wanted to stay out of a (possible) European conflict between the Entente Cordiale and the Triple Alliance, it began to see itself as a police power. This was what Theodore Roosevelt had in mind, at least dealing with the western hemisphere. (Collary Roosevelt). “Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe-Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.”

When World War I broke out, the US decided to stay out of it. Officially at least, because the US supported the entente through financial and military aid. But there were enough reasons for the United States to get involved. The sinking of the Lusitania was one. Still, Woodrow Wilson decided to keep America out of the war. Secretary of State William Jennings said “I agree with the American people in thanking God we have a president who has kept – who will keep – us out of war.” However, when the German Reich started the “Unbeschränkte U-boot Krieg” in February 1917 the US had no other choice than to join the allies, since the Germans didn’t care about neutrality anymore. But how could Wilson sell this to the American public. At the same time, there was a revolution going on in Russia, a liberal revolution. The US wanted to support the temporary Russian government in its fight against autocratic Germany. In fact, it was “a crusade for democracy.” On the 2nd of April 1917 Woodrow Wilson used this argument in the Congress. “No autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith or observe its convenants […] The great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naïve majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is a fit partner for a league of honor.”

Ofcourse, Russia, or the USSR was not the ‘fit partner in the league of honour’ the US wanted it to become. It is important though, that we understand, that the United States was not only fighting for its own protection, but also for ‘democracy’. It’s easy for Europeans to claim US would have got involved anyway, since it was in their own interests, but the US could easily made an agreement with Germany if it wanted to. Ironically, 30 years later, the US had to assist Germany in defending itself from a totalitarian regime in Russia.

Much has been written about the inter war period. We could say the US became an economic world player after WWI, and it reached the level of superpower after WWII. In his Age of extremes Eric Hobsbawm tries to look at both world wars as one, he uses the term “31-year war”. However, where World War I was a war between states, World War II was different. It was a clash of ideologies, namely Nazism, Communism and Liberal Democracy. When Germany invaded Belgium in august 1914, the world was shocked because Belgium’s neutrality was violated, not because a democracy was attacked. How wrong was chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg believing Britain would not risk a war over Belgium, and that the Treaty of april 1839 was nothing but “ein fetzen papier”. “Poor little Belgium” had to be liberated from German oppression, not in the name of democracy, but because Belgium was a nation-state and it deserved independency. I think this shows that the United States, at that stage, where not as influential as one might expect. The Versailles-treaty was an act of revenge, mainly coming from a humiliated and wounded (and hence dangerous?) France. If it was up to the US, Germany would not have to be punished that severe. Everyone who reads a little bit on international relations, knows that a defeated party should not be humiliated even more: this frustration was the cause of World War II. Nationalism continued to exist after WWI, even supported by the United States to compete against the “internationalism” of the newly created Soviet-Union. But this was a different form of nationalism than the Europeans had in mind. Not the exclusive nationalism based on blood-ties and Darwinism, but based upon a similar traditions, history and culture (inclusive nationalism). France and the UK thought they could sit around the table, and dictate Germany (and the others who lost the war), while Wilson wanted a new kind of “open” diplomacy. The League of Nations was supposed to bring this dream of a new diplomacy into reality. However, the Senate didn’t share Wilson’s ideas and neither did any of the European players, and hence, the League turned out to be a big failure. Important though is that we understand US foreign policy was never aggressive nor arrogant towards any country in Europe. They did believe that “democracy” was a goal that should be achieved by all means possible, and that everyone had the right to live under a democratic regime, where in Europe most were stuck to the nineteenth century politics of “balances of power” and that every country should decide on its own how it should be governed, as long as it did not bother the others (roughly said). So, the US pulled backed its troops out of Europe.

Conclusion:

Looking back at World War I we found the historical basis to understand what some might describe as “US propaganda”, ie “democracy and freedom”. Even the word crusade has a different meaning when looking at its historical context. In Europe however, we compare it to the Crusades of the 11-12th century. The US means something totally opposed to that. The United States is not innocent, but it uses a different vocabulary.

1956, a turning-point in US-European relations?

The “31-year” war changed the landscape for ever. How did the US see its new role as a superpower during the cold war? In 1956 the Suez-Crisis illustrates the clash between “Europe” and the US. This Anglo-French military assault on Egypt (backed by Israeli paratroopers) can be seen as the last act of colonialism. Without going into details, the outcome of the war was simple. The UK and France were humiliated because the US did not support the war, in fact, it wanted both countries to withdraw immediately. President Eisenhower condemned the attack. The British reacted by a growing dependence upon the US. The French and de Gaulle were upset, it proved France could not rely on its allies for defence. It was one of the reasons why France decided to withdraw from NATO’s military command. Simultaneously, in Hungary there was a call for a communism with a human face. Even though the pictures of Soviet tanks in the streets of Budapest are well known, at that time, the Hungarian crisis was forgotten due the problems in the Middle East.

These two crises marked the end of the European empires and transferred the power to the new superpowers, namely the US and the USSR. Even before WWII, the empires were already in decline, but 1956 must have been a turning-point in the consciousness of the Europeans. Washington and Moscow would dominate the world scene, not London, Paris, Berlin, leave alone Brussels. In ten years time all former European colonies got their independence.
The frustration of the Suez-aftermath led to two different approaches towards the US, namely the British and the French. Britain would never go to war without consulting the US (even the Falklands), while France did the opposite. Even today, 50 years later, we still see the same lines in the foreign policies of the two countries:
“Last night, however, Tony Blair gave warning to Mr Chirac against placing Europe as a rival to the United States, calling such a move “destabilising”. In an interview with the Financial Times, he said: “I am not really interested in talk about punishing countries, but I think there is an issue that we have to resolve here between America and Europe and within Europe about Europe’s attitude towards the transatlantic alliance.”

It’s not only a quarrel between France and the UK. Vaclav Havel, the former president of the Czech Republic, supported the war in Iraq by signing an open letter in different European newspapers back in 2003.

The reaction of France and the Gaullists after the Suez-crisis was maybe aimed against Washington, but this was not a general sentiment among the people. After all, what did Europe have to do with Egypt? It was politically inspired anti-Americanism. It illustrated the end of European imperialism.

Coca Cola versus Wodka

Simultaneously however, Politicians and Intellectuals warned European public for the growing Americanism in our daily life. Mass-consuming, the wide spread of Coca Cola, symbol of America’s influence … The newspaper Le Monde dedicated an article to it. Did it mean the end of a European culture? A return to the Victorian Europe (Oscar Wilde?) was impossible, but this had little to do with America’s growing influence on the continent. Two World Wars, mass Democracy, Fascism and Nazism have transformed Europe more than any Mc Donalds commercial or Ford could ever do. A famous quote from Sir Edward Grey illustrates this “’The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”, just a matter a hours before World War I broke out. He already knew Europe was about to change, long before America would get involved into European politics.
Hence, the warning from intellectuals was not followed by the public. Especially in Germany and the other countries that lost the war, this intellectual anti-Americanism was not at all popular. They rather had Coca-Cola than Wodka. Surprisingly, the British were more critical towards the American culture. They compared themselves as Athens which was now under the influence of a new Rome namely Washington DC. During the fifties and much of the sixties, anti-Americanism was something for intellectuals and politicians frustrated with colonial defeats, rather than a general sentiment in Europe. If the “American way of life” was “rock music and automobiles”, than the Beatles and Mercedes-Benz knew quite well how to adapt themselves to European standards and satisfy the public on both sides of the Atlantic.

MAI 1968

The goal of this paper was however to examine how anti-Americanism has evolved the past decades. Today we see pictures on TV of students with anti-Bush pamphlets, marching through the streets of Brussels, Londen, Paris, Rome …But has it always been like this? Is it a recent phenomenon? When students go out on the streets today and protest against the “neo-conservative warmongers”, they try to see themselves as the successors of their parents, back in the sixties. When operation “free Iraq” began, thousands of students went out on the streets here in Leuven. Unfortunatelly, what out parents where protesting for is quite different from today. There was little anti-Americanism back then, in fact, one could argue the whole idea of New Left and Flower Power is an export product of the US.

The “civil rights movements”, the Students for a Democratic Society, soon began to set foot on European shore. They came as a counterweight to the growing materialism (suburbs) and McCarthyism of the fifties. If we look at the situation in Leuven, one thing is noticeable. In May ’66 students wanted the Walloons to leave the “Flemish” Catholic University of Leuven. Soon, this anti-Walloon feeling, which is quite right wing, changed drastically and became an anti-authoritarian feeling (thus left wing). It was not the Walloons anymore who were the “evils”: it were politicians, the establishment and the Gendarmerie. In January ’68, a second wave of protests emerged, but the students didn’t hand out “Walen Buiten” leaflets anymore, nor did they sing the Flemish hymn. Instead they sang “We shall overcome”, the same song their colleagues in the US used on protest marches. In the summer of 1967 American students from the SDS went to Berlin to debate with their colleagues in Europe on how to organise events. They brought with them the whole ideology of New Left and anti-authoritarianism. Students from Berlin and other universities introduced them into Marxism.

What is important is that we remember that the sixties-revolts were not aimed at America, but against authority in general. American students didn’t want to go to Vietnam, students from France however did not protest against Vietnam, they had their own reasons: Algeria being one of them. De Gaulle found this out very soon when French youngsters began blocking the whole country because they didn’t like maréchal’s authoritarian grip on the state: “Mai ‘68” almost became a civil war in France. Charles de Gaulle’s anti-Americanism could not prevent the students from breaking through the blockades. The same went on in the rest of western-Europe. Protests against Portuguese colonialism, against NATO, against Apartheid in South Africa … And not only in the West: The Prague Spring was also a spontaneous movement against the authoritarian rule of Moscow. The ideologies of the protestors on the different sides of the Iron Curtain may have been totally different, their methods and philosophy were quite alike.

STAR WARS

“Les nombreux amis que les Etats-Unis conservent en Europe ont la plus grande peine à expliquer et à justifier une telle façon d’agir […] Il me semble que cette solidarité a aujourd’hui disparu […] Le sentiment qu’il existait des intérêts essentiels communs entre les Etats-Unis et les pays bas de l’Europe occidentale s’est grandement affaiiblil. »
This statement from our own Belgian minister Paul-Henri Spaak was spoken out after a NATO-meeting in Brussels, in 1973, with the newly appointed state secretary H. Kissinger. The beginning of the seventies has marked a chasm between Europe and the US, not only among politicians and intellectuals, but, granted we believe Mr. Spaak’s words, also among the public.

Without going into details, there are many reasons why the US became so unpopular during that period. The problems lay both in internal and external US politics. The move to the right, a more conservative approach (Nixon, and later Reagan) made Europeans think they were different. However, we can hardly call Mrs. Tatcher or Helmut Kohl a progressive. European politicians were divided, and they didn’t know quite well how to handle the Economic Crisis, which erupted after the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
But those were just “politics”, what has changed in the mind of the Europeans? In the sixties one of the more popular icons was Ché Guevara. The dirty role the CIA played in his assassination, and the role it played in the coup on Chilean president Salvatore Allende, made many Europeans think the US was trying to become imperialistic. Soon national scandals were forgotten and all eyes were focused upon the US. It was not until the late nineties for example the Belgian public came aware of the role our government played in the assassination of the “socialist” prime minister Lumumba of the Democtaric Repubic of Congo. Not that different from the CIA’s actions in Grenada, Chile … Even peaceful achievements like the Camp David Treaty (Israeli and Egypt in ’79) Jimmy Carter helped to realise were moved to the background in favour of more sensational news like the Iran-gate scandal. When president Reagan came to power in 1981 the growing sence of European anti-Americanism reached heights. Not only politics but also the entire American society was questioned. But there was hypocrisy: even though many Europeans opposed Reagan’s idea of Star Wars, it didn’t stop them from enjoying all the benefits the US provided us. George Lucas didn’t lose a cent due a boycott of the European public.

POST-MODERNISM

Could the problems, the gap between the US and Europe lay any deeper than just a feeling of resentment towards politics? What are the underlying problems that caused the two continents to drift away since the early seventies?

According to the philosopher Jean-François Lyotard the problem is that Europe and the US are living in two different worlds. The first is post-modern, the latter still modern (which could change). The failure of two ideologies, Fascism (in 1945) and Communism (in 1989, although many people regarded the Prague Spring as the end of this ideology) didn’t make us necessarily believe Liberal Democracy was the best solution, like Fukuyama has suggested in his book “The End of History”. Therefore, the SDI-initiative didn’t find any support in Europe. There are no big “tales” anymore. Nietzsche said “God is dead”. In fact this quote has been misused all over by atheists, because it originally stated “God is dead, and we killed him.”

The oil crisis of the seventies now questioned “modernism” itself. Europe has turned into a huge museum with all kinds of different ideologies (punk, new wave, ecologists …), but contrary to the United States we stopped believing in Modernism or vague terms such as “Freedom” or “Democracy”. The fact that we have difficulties understanding these words today doesn’t mean we have always done so. Post-modernism has changed us into cynic observers. Even our parents back in the sixties believed in “something”, be it Marxism, Maoïsm or just having sex in the back of a VW-minivan. The students who go out to protest today, in contrary, are as “selfish and greedy” as they claim the Americans to be. After the marches, they return to their luxurious flats, and watch Michael Moore’s latest DVD on their laptops. It has more to do with boredom than anything else.

FINAL CONCLUSION

“we’re not just kids, to say the least
we got ideas to us that’s dear
like capitalist, like communist
like lots of things you’ve heard about
and redneckers they get us pissed
and stupid stuff it makes us shout”

I started this essay with a quote from Oscar Wilde, and I would like to conclude with these lyrics from the song U-Mass by the Pixies. I have tried to find a historical basis for the feeling of anti-Americanism and found out the answer is not that clear. There aren’t just political and historical differences, but the “pomo”-philosophy could be a bigger overall reason. It’s impossible to find out if these “misunderstanding” (because that’s what it is) will continue to grow or will it on the other hand, be overthrown by a similar language again on both sides if the Atlantic. Will America embrace Post-Modernism fully could be the question, or will Europe return to Modernism …