64 years ago, my mother saw the Americans liberating Strasbourg, France, my hometown. Today she is proud that Strasbourg was up to the visit of the U.S. President, in giving him a warm welcome. She also saw the French-German border collapse on the Rhine, and was proud to watch the NATO allies meeting this week on the “Pont des Deux Rives”, which materializes the former check-point.
Mom called me from France today to make sure I had not missed the event on TV. But she also wanted to make sure that the American media did not put too much emphasis on the anti-NATO demonstrations held on the sidelines of the summit. “Just a few idiots and thugs” she said as to apologize. This is her city, she’s proud … and ashamed.
And it is true that aside from the overall warm welcome, some violent demonstrations took place in the suburbs of the city, against the Europe-US Alliance, against capitalism and against globalization. Not to say the word: against America. These events are not specifically French. They have become routine at most major international meetings. They were violent in London for the G20, as for all the latest “G” meetings. But from a US perspective, they take a special importance when held in a country which is viewed as the most anti-American in Europe. It’s a cliché (polls show that the anti-american sentiment is much stronger in Germany and Spain), but one must acknowledge that it is a cliché that many French politicians are likely to promote.
By showing respect and consideration for the European culture and influence, Barack Obama undermines the foundation of the French anti-Americanism. But it seems now that anti-Americanism gets fueled by the pro-American support Nicolas Sarkozy is showing in return. As the President of the United States gets more popular in Europe, anti-Americanism turns into “anti pro-Americanism.” Since we can’t blame the American president anymore , let’s blame the pro-american decisions of the French president. Pure rhetoric.
It will probably take more than the speech Barack Obama delivered in Strasbourg in a public meeting to put an end to this sterile antagonism. It will also require the media to report full excerpts of the speech, not just 5 seconds. In the excerpt of Obama’s speech reproduced below, the french media often broadcasted the first part only, while CNN pulled out the second part. Unfortunately, the “antis” on all sides have nice days ahead …
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.
(…)
So let me say this as clearly as I can: America is changing, but it cannot be America alone that changes.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Post by Jean from Inside America
I wonder if you know what a neo-conservative is? Better yet, what IS your interpretation of the term?
Yes, “America is changing” – and has for some time. However, the change in the horizon is not going to be what you expected, just as the Obama administration isn’t performing as expected, but neither did the Bush administration.
Anti-Americanism is right here among us. You failed to realize that France, along with Germany, had secret dealings with Saddam Hussein after signing a pact to put sanctions against him for several important reasons – by the UN. It all fit into place why France, Germany and Russia were wailing about getting rid of the psychopath ruler that tortured and murdered Iraqi and Kurds during his two decade and a half rule. But all the political left would argue about were WMDs. The whole anti-war movement was orchestrated by politics, as is quite evident when one does not see any anti-war activity against Obama administration policy. Meanwhile, troops will be in Iraq until at least 2010 and President Obama has sent 4,000 more and will send much more than that this year.
Thanks for linking my article “How Do Nations Perceive Us?” – but the problem is not neo-conservatives. As of yet, I have not met a Canadian or member of the United Kingdom, specifically England, that “hates America” as you state. However, like America, England has its share of political left individuals who think that socialism must replace democracy, in the case of America our democratic republic; and indeed, the Democrat political entity has worked its way toward this endeavor, with it speeding up after Clinton was elected. GW Bush certainly didn’t help matters concerning limited government, enlarged bureaucracy, et cetera and with the Obama policy this will continue and probably accelerate more because of the content of congressional members in Congress.
Whining? I don’t whine, I present facts/truth, and hold no affiliation to either Democrat or Republican political entities.
Sorry about bringing up the UN scandal with France, since you are French, but it is what it is.
While in Germany I met some Germans who were aloof at first, but I didn’t act like an “ugly American” and hopefully represented my country well. The few French I met was at NATO in Turkey and some at the local resorts – and they definitely had a bad attitude for Americans, but then this has been going on since De Gaulle. I have come to the conclusion that because France has become so insistent upon socialism, they have forgotten that they were once the pride of world culture, and indeed the capital of it. French used to be the diplomatic language and Americans and French appreciated each other. The only way I can see it is that corruption ate away what made France once a great cultural nation, just as to an extent in America.
In summary, as pointed out in my article, we are not as unpopular as some try to make us believe, and as I said, we have anti-Americanism surfacing here from people who were born here. Legal immigrants are more loyal than too many natural-born citizens, and probably know more about our history and form of government than too many natural-born Americans do. That is sad.
It is good that Obama feels he has a good relationship with our European counterparts making up part of the world of free nations – but he must beware, just as others before him, of who he can actually trust.
I suggest you read “Treachery” by Bill Gertz, which includes the facts about the French, German and Russian illegal dealings with Saddam Hussein – and other facts about those who say they are our allies and are not.
Europeans are naturally reluctant about military actions, it is because they suffered terribly during World War II. War is terrible, but those who would destroy free nations must be stopped. I am thinking that President Obama realizes this because he has access to information he didn’t have as a candidate for president. However, he must be careful about this Kumbaya policy thinking that those with treachery on their minds will sit down and discuss anything coming close to stopping their aggression – and in fact would look at negotiations as a weakness. Diplomacy is a weird endeavor as any former president or ambassador would probably reveal.
Thanks for the link. Interesting articles, but the opening header is insulting. At least conservatives have given President Obama a better shot than GW Bush got in his first 100 days – in fact, the political left started in just after he swore in. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks.
KAL
Keith: Not sure I can answer all of your comment. I’m just a guest here. But I’ll take the French side of it, just to wonder why the terrible French, German & Russian conspiracy – if any – has not been revealed to the people timely enough to change the public’s mind. I suppose the Bush administration knew about it? Why use fake evidence of WMD instead of telling the truth? “We want to get rid of a dictator” would have been enough of a justification to me! And did France not have any interest in Irak when joining America for the First Gulf War? What has changed to lead to this supposedly “secret deal” with Saddam? I was in France back then, and like you, I thought that getting rid of a dictator would not be a bad thing. But the whole argument and the stage set up by the Bush administration sounded so fake that it was hard believing oil resources had nothing to do with it. Well, anyway, unfortunately we can’t go back in time. And bottom line, you’re probably right thinking that France is not America’s best ally. Nobody’s as perfect as the British
But it certainly doesn’t make this country the evil you describe either. I know the media do not usually leave us much room between “good” and “bad”, but I’m sure France still has much more in common with the US – including common interests! – than many other European countries. Enough to elect a pro-American president, send thousands fighting against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, and proudly host an American president on its soil, whatever his views.
Interesting piece. I wonder if you’ve seen this poll:
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/4/9/US/284
Basically, the same people who like San Francisco and New York also like France and Europe. Those Americans who dislike France? They also seem to dislike the most cosmopolitan American cities.
I would be very surprised if the same weren’t true elsewhere, including France. I would imagine a lot of anti-American French people also dislike Paris, Marseille, etc.
I think bellyaching about what country did this or that, which dictator they supported, etc is pointless, since each and every country always acts in its own self-interest, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. There are no exceptions.
And personally speaking, the most anti-American people I’ve met live have been British. You’d probably have to delve into some psychobabble to explain why. (Obviously, this is not every Brit, and a good half are either positively-inclined or neutral towards Americans)
JM:”every country always acts in its own self-interest”
I believe you’re totally right. Trouble comes when you start to relate governments’ decisions to people’s feeling. However, that’s also what makes the fun of blogging about it
Thanks for the interesting poll. If I’m reading well, I should look for young black American women to make the most friends
JM, concerning the British being anti-American, this goes back to the Revolutionary era. When John Adams was appointed as a minister to Britain he was intentionally ignored and the little attention he did get was by patronizing British officials. Abigail, met with a wife of a member of Parliament and in attempt to be friendly this woman asked “Surely you would rather live in this country than in America?”.
The British press was much worse, the overall outlook was that America was experimenting with democracy and would get in over its head and come running back to England. Today’s British, if you would ever bring this up go on and on about how insignificant the American colonies were and that the British Empire gave the American colonies up.
I think that the British, who love to relive the old days of their empire are still greatly affected by America, a group of colonies they once owned and now they act as those former colonies’ poodle. I think this attitude was carried throughout the ages and some British and the British media still think this way to a degree. We are barbaric, war mongering, un-cultured, slobs now, and we were all these things back then.
Jean: Yes, I would add “in the Northeast” but I think you already have that covered.
Jane: Interesting historical tidbit! I think the UK is the only European country that is relatively poorer than one of its former colonies. That’s certainly not the case with France, Spain, Germany or Italy, so you might have a point. The only way to one-up the US is to portray us as culturally inferior.
The end of anti-Americanism? Are you kidding me?! Whether in Europe or else where hatred of America is NOT going to go away just because a left-wing, pseudo-Christian, I’m-sorry-to-be-an-American, Black guy is now president. Contrary to the Bush haters’ party line, hatred of America has very little to do with who is POTUS. The worst pre-9/11 terrorist attacks against Americans, including the first WTC bombing, happened during Clinton’s liberal, Democratic presidency. And they happened in spite of the fact that Clinton bombed White Christians who had never harmed America in order to protect Muslims who had never helped America. Some how that failed to register on the America haters’ radar screen. And I say again, Clinton was a liberal Democrat.
The BDS crowd’s contention that if we just got a liberal Democrat in the White House then pro-America fever would sweep the globe is, and always has been, a delusion. Or an outright lie concocted and incessantly repeated to help facilitate a lib/Dem retaking the presidency. And now that that’s happened we wake up in the morning to find that the world STILL hates America! Obama hasn’t changed that one bit. The Iranians essentially told him to fvck off. The North Koreans tested a missile just as Obama was cooing about a nuclear free world. And while the Europeans smiled warmly in his face, they didn’t give the Messiah anything he wanted.
Face it, Obamabots. Your god doesn’t have any magical powers to heal the world. The nations rage for their own reasons, reasons that often go back into the recesses of history. And many of them have made anti-Americanism an ideological imperative, much like anti-Semitism was an ideological imperative for Naziism. Changing presidents won’t change that. But I expect few here to get that, so I’ll just go to bed now.
One more thing before I go. What’s this BS about Europe’s leading world? Leading role?! Since when? You mean the Europe that wouldn’t confront ethnic cleansing in it’s own backyard? The Europe that wouldn’t call Russia on it’s aggression against Georgia? The Europe that won’t reproduce itself and is embracing dhimmitude out of sheer cowardice? THAT Europe? I might be missing something but I don’t see any leadership there. Could somebody please explain Europe’s “leading role” and what good it’s done lately? An inquiring mind wants to know.
Right Sean-Anna. “Leading role” is a bit overstated for a 2,000 year old civilization. As for Europe’s recent past, I guess that 27 independent nations putting aside their recurring disputes to focus on common interests and freely coming together to build common democratic institutions does not count for much of an achievement in the world’s history. Let’s celebrate America’s sixty past years of sound leadership, and stop reaching out to the weak and thankless. It might well last for 20 more centuries
Seane-Anna: You seem to have confused this site with Free Republic.
Europe does have a leading role in this world, Seane-Anna. They have for 1000s of years. It’s why Europe is called “The Hub of the World”.
“Seane-Anna: You seem to have confused this site with Free Republic.” Huh?
Jane and Jean, please give me some specific examples of Europe playing a leading role in the world today. Yes, Europe has a 2,000 year old, or even older, civilization, but how does that translate into a LEADING role in the world TODAY? Islamic civilization is close to 2,000 years old but it has no leading role in the modern world, except for being the leader in the production of terrorists. Sorry J and J, but age alone doesn’t win you any points.
And Jean, I never said that Europe hadn’t achieved anything of late. The EU can be considered some sort of an achievement, although exactly what kind is open to debate. I do know that the EU was useless in stopping ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia in the ’90’s. America, under the guise of NATO, did that. The EU was impotent in the face of Russia’s aggression against Georgia last year. The fact that many EU nations depend on Russia for much of their energy supply probably explains that. And internally, the different EU countries are committing indigenous suicide and surrendering to radical Islam faster than you can say, “Allahu akhbar!”. Sorry Jean, but that does NOT add up to a leading role in the modern world!
Impotent in Georgia you said? Hmmm: check this
Useless in Yugoslavia? Did you know that out of 13,800 NATO troops in Yugoslavia, over 10,500 have been sent by the European Union (check out the contributing nations to KFOR: France alone sent more troops there than the US). But of course, once the open conflict is over, cleaning the mess is not breaking news anymore.
No one in Europe is trying to diminish America’s leadership and overwhelming military power in today’s world. But please, “useless” and “impotent” is hard to swallow, and offensive. Especially as European soldiers are dying along with Americans in Afghanistan.
Of course, non-American successes are rarely breaking news on Fox. And what’s not on TV does not exist, right?
But more importantly, I think you’re misunderstanding Obama’s point about a European “leading role”, by looking at the military and diplomatic aspects of it only. The world certainly needs a police. But there’s also room for teachers, scientists, philosophers and artists. You might think that global warming is a myth and that green technology is “useless”. However, here’s an area where Europe certainly has the lead. As Obama is unveiling his “high-speed train plan”, you might want to consider France’s fastest train network in the world as a possible example. Want to talk about healthcare? check this. The discoverer of the human immunodeficiency virus (AIDS): check it here.
Maybe not an overall leading role. But not so bad for a useless, impotent, declining civilization.
I think Obama was not diminishing America’s leadership at all. On the contrary, he gave America’s leadership a purpose and a strategy to keep growing, by learning from others instead of dividing further more.
Well said, Seanne-Anna and no one would have confused this site with the “Free Republic”.
Jean, you are a good defender of your country and continent but not good enough to change my mind. I read all the stories in your links, except the AIDS one because I couldn’t get that link to work for some reason. You made some good points but it still doesn’t add up to Europe having a leading role in the world.
Sure, Nicholas Sarkozy brokered a cease-fire between Russia and Georgia but, if memory serves, that was AFTER the fighting had all but ended anyway and Russia had kicked the hell out of Georgia and gotten what it wanted. Not very impressive, if you ask me. And as for Yugoslavia, you’re right, Jean. The Europeans are only cleaning up the mess; America did the heavy lifting…as usual. Again, not impressed.
European soldiers dying in Afghanistan don’t fill me with awe, either. The EU nations have suffered paltry losses compared to America. The US has lost 612 soldiers in Afghanistan. Do you know how many France has lost? 27. The Europeans closest to the US in losses are the Brits with 152 dead. The third hardest hit nation isn’t even in Europe, it’s Canada with 118 dead. The Yanks, the Brits, and the Canucks are the fighting triad in Afghanistan with the Yanks, as usual, leading the way. Score one for America yet again.
You were at your best, Jean, on the health care issue. The article on France’s health care system WAS impressive, although I was a bit skeptical considering the story was in the Boston Globe. Still, it was an interesting read and gave me something to think about. You score one point, Jean. But only one.
Since only blood seems to favorably impress you, let’s acknowledge that, representing a nation of only 20% the population of the US, the Brits paid more than their share in Afghanistan. So far, Britain remains a European country. I’m sorry France did not match the loss.
But again, you’re missing the point. This is not a competition to measure up to the US power. Just an attempt to make you understand that leadership has many sides. Claiming that Europe has no leading role whatever the matter is just an ignorant and stupid statement.
I’m done trying to open – not change – your mind. Maybe one day you’ll get that the “leading idea” in today’s world is precisely that, no matter the good reasons, one country alone cannot – and should not – lead nor rule the world. And this is a true European lesson, learned from over 2,000 years of failed testing.
And thanks for the kind words, Keith!
Jean! Jean! Jean! If I don’t agree with your view I must have a closed mind and be “ignorant and stupid”. Typical liberal–European?–response to a patriotic American who dares to defend her beliefs. And you said NOTHING about my positive regard for the article on France’s health care system. I guess if you HAD acknowledged that it would’ve undermined your effort to smear me as an ignoramus. So, Jean, I’m through with you, too. From where I sit your mind is as closed as you think mine is. Aurevoir, mon ami.
I’m not saying you’re stupid and ignorant. I’m saying your derisive statement about a possible leading role for Europe is. As you noticed about healthcare, there might be something to learn from Europe today. Copy the good in it, and leave the bad out … as this truly is part of the American genius.
Sorry I did not give that positive note. I appreciate. But you did not comment Europe’s leading role in the fight against climate change either. Tie.
Sorry if my English sounded offensive. Your French is much better
I agree with Jean, you are being one-side Seane-Anna. You are quite stubborn in your beliefs about the US. European leadership and actions are minimized by conservatives and the media outlets that cater to them. In fact if it isn’t about the US, it is mostly written off. You are ignorant if you fail to recognize other nations roles in this world, because it really isn’t open for debate, some things are just fact.
Thanks Jane. Feels good to get some support!
But I don’t think Seane-Anna is as stubborn as it appears. Or she would not be blogging with “typical-liberal-Europeans” at all. Communication is the first step towards understanding. Not that I think we’ll ever share “beliefs”, but I’ll take “understanding” as a positive ending!!!
Although I think Seane-Anna has been guilty of listening to herself and others in the right-wing echo chamber for too long, she makes a few points that are partially true (admittedly in a clumsy way):
- Anti-Americanism existed before Bush, and won’t go away with Obama. This is true. Underlying resentment in the Muslim world certainly predates the Bush era and it will outlast it.
- Europe generally acts too little and too late. This has generally been the case since WW2. Maybe it’s an aversion to involvement in war because WW2 was so brutal for them. Maybe it’s realpolitik. (That might explain Bosnia and Rwanda, for instance) This makes its role on the world’s stage less than what you would expect given its size.
What Seane-Anna does leave out:
- While anti-Americanism has and will always exist, there is something to be said for its relative strength. I for one am glad that Obama is reaching out to the likes of Chavez and Castro. Think about it: they are not our real enemies, and differences with them are far easier to reconcile than with other hostile regimes. The more the US enjoys popular support among the vast majority of nations, the more it will marginalize those countries who genuinely do present a threat (think Iran, for example).
- If Europe acts too little, the US acts too much. Yes, every world power throughout history has been guilty of doing too much, so this is just a fact. When the US’s relative strength wanes, its free hand to create war and intervene when it’s not necessarily prudent will be reined in. That’s a good thing. Wars cost (LOTS of) money, they destroy lives, and in many cases do not leave a better outcome than if they hadn’t happened. Iraq is a very good example.
And I have to agree with Seane-Anna that the French health care system is worthy of intense study (along with others) as we look to create universal healthcare Stateside. Not an easily dismissible compliment given both France and universal health care are both widely derided in the right-wing circles that Seane-Anna no doubt frequents.
JM, I’m probably spoiling the mood here but, no, your backhanded compliments are NOT appreciated. I hope I didn’t write that too clumsily for you to understand. Now on to your Messiah. You’re glad he’s reaching out to commie tyrants Chavez and the two Castros? Well, duh! You and Obama are on the same side of the political divide as they are. You share the same “blame America first” narrative as they do. The only difference, JM, between you and Obama and Chavez and the Castro brothers is one of degree, not kind. So I’m not at all surprised that you’re all gaga over Obama “reaching out” to his and your ideological kin.
I will give you Brownie points, though, for having the honesty to admit that anti-Americanism existed before Bush and won’t end with the ascendancy of Obama. I really didn’t expect that from a leftie. I’m shocked!
And yes, I think France’s health care system deserves “intense study” but don’t take that to mean I have the same fetish for universal health care you lefties do. And can you please explain said fetish? I mean, you lefties act like universal health care is the ULTIMATE litmus test for a noble society. It doesn’t matter to you what kind of crimes a government commits, if it gives its people universal health care it’s good and just in your eyes. That’s the only explanation I can think of for why so many lefties admire tyrant Fidel Castro, for instance. To paraphrase a gay blogging friend of mine, liberals don’t care how many gays Castro kills so long as the straight people get free health care. I think that’s a fair summation of the liberal position. What say you, JM?
And Jean, thanks for trying to defend me from Jane but I have to say I AM stubborn in my opinions, and I have to be. I’m sick and tired of my country being the world’s whipping boy, trashed, smeared, disdained, derided, and condemned from without AND within. It’s my duty as a patriot to defend my country against the dishonest and unfair attacks of the jealous, the ignorant, the slackers, and the evil. As he revealed on his Mea Culpa Tour, Obama isn’t up to that job. But somebody’s gotta do it and that somebody is ME!
SA: Cranky as ever, I see. And delusional. Messiah? I’m not the religious sort myself, but do all 67 million Obama voters hold their candidate up as the Messiah? A better question, maybe one that you can actually answer correctly: do all 58 million McCain voters hold their candidate up as the Messiah? If you react incredulously to the suggestion, then I suppose you might realize how idiotic you sound suggesting it’s any different for the Left. Please, put down that bong, and stop swilling the brown water inside.
And I suppose if it’s just a matter of degree and not kind, then the US should sever ties with just about every country on the planet – no handshakes! – we certainly strongly disagree with any number of things that other countries do or see differently. Or maybe just the undemocratic ones. What say you about our ties with Saudi Arabia? Or do you imagine that’s a democracy ruled by gentle, magnanimous leaders? And I suppose it would be better if Chavez and Castro, who apparently butcher thousands of their countrymen (who knew?), were conspiring with the likes of Iran and Al Qaeda. I know a significant number of right-wingers like to portray themselves as beleaguered martyrs who happily cut their nose to spite their face, but I didn’t know to count you among them. Put down that bong!
How do you feel about natural disasters striking? Should the government provide relief? When hundreds or thousands are made homeless by a tornado, earthquake, hurricane, flood… should the government say “I hope you had insurance or money to rebuild your lives”? If not, please explain why the situation is any different when it comes to healthcare. Please try to avoid hyperbole, fabrications, and utterly meaningless aspersions (I realize that might be impossible for you).
Suffice it to say, I will never agree with your idea of what the liberal position is. First of all, I don’t consider myself a representative of a group that isn’t organized that way. Second, you’re almost always wrong. Lefties admire Fidel Castro? PUT DOWN THAT BONG!
JM, since you think I don’t know “what the liberal position is” please, explain. I’m listening. I really am. But I stand by my assertion that lefties admire Castro and his simian sidekick Chavez. You can continue in your denial while Sean “Pinhead” Penn and other Hollyweird libbies trek to worship Chavez and Ted Turner lionizes Fidel on “The O’Reilly Factor”.
As for Saudi Arabia, I actually do think we should cut ties with that country. It’s an Islamic dictatorship which spawned 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. Saudi money fuels radical mosques, madrassas, and imans throughout the Arab/Muslim world and even here in America. Supporting that country and it’s government is like hugging a rattle snake, something NONE of our presidents has ever understood.
Now to health care. Yes, health care IS different from helping people hit by a natural disaster. I mean, that’s really a weak argument, JM. If that’s all you’ve got that’s sad. You see, JM, natural disasters aren’t every day events. People are not hit by tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc., continuously. Disasters happen here and there, they affect a limited number of people, and then they end. The government may have a role to play in helping people to recover, but that’s different from government paying the health care costs of an ENTIRE nation INDEFINITELY.
JM, I’m not against gov’t paying for health care SELECTIVELY. If a family is facing a catastrophic illness, like cancer, and can’t pay for the treatment, the gov’t might can help. But the gov’t should NOT provide blanket health care to all. If it’s going to do that, why stop there? Why shouldn’t the gov’t pay for everyone’s housing, too? Why shouldn’t the gov’t pay everyone’s car note, day care bill, grocery bill, utilities, and college tuition? Hell, why don’t we just ditch the whole notion of personal responsibility and make the gov’t our nanny AND our God?
And last but not least, I have NEVER been drunk or high on ANYTHING in my ENTIRE 45 years. SO THERE!
S-A: Get help.
“S-A: Get help.” Come now, JM. Is that the best you can do?
[...] from various nations decry the United States for being some sort of global policeman, or worse. Those same people all too often owe their ability to criticize, if not their very lives to the people that served in [...]