Anti-Americanism's nasty taste
By Moisés Naím
Published: February 23 2003

There is murderous anti-Americanism and there is anti-Americanism "light".
The first is the anti-Americanism of fanatical terrorists who hate the US -
its power, its values and its policies - and are willing to kill and to die
in order to hurt it. The second is the anti-Americanism of those who take to
the streets and the media to rant against it but do not seek its
destruction.


Both light anti-Americans and Americans in government share the illusion
that anti-Americanism that falls short of terrorism is costless. Light
anti-Americans will tell you that they love the country but despise its
policies, and that criticising its government is healthy.

They are correct that the global pushback against US initiatives helps to
limit the unilateral excesses, mistakes, and double standards of a
superpower often driven by overly narrow calculations rooted in domestic
politics. But they are wrong when they assume that there is no cost to their
broad denunciations, especially when vocal attacks against US policy help
stoke far deeper and more pervasive animosities and suspicions against the
US, its government, and its people.

Those who partake and spread light anti-Americanism even while sharing the
principles and values that the US stands for undermine its ability to defend
such principles abroad. After all, international influence requires power
but it also depends on legitimacy. Such legitimacy flows from the acceptance
of others that not only consent to but even welcome the use of that
influence.

US legitimacy abroad was undermined by George W. Bush's propensity to talk
tough and threaten to act alone and impose the will of his administration on
others. But such actions were interpreted by much of the world through the
lens of deep suspicions about the US that existed well before the Bush
presidency. Ultimately, the automatic rejection of US international actions
rooted in light anti- Americanism may be as bad for the world as granting
the US a blank cheque to exert its power without the constraints imposed by
the inter- national community.

For example, the instinctive reactions stoked by light anti-Americanism
surely had some role in undermining and perhaps permanently altering the
Nato alliance. The relevance and effectiveness of many UN agencies are also
eroded by their subtle and sometimes not so subtle anti-Americanism.
Moreover, the stridency of this global anti-American chorus also undermines
the support of the US public for their country's international engagement.

While active US engagement may not always be the best recipe for
international problems, it is often the only one available. Average
Americans already have a hard time understanding why they should bear the
burden of being the world's sheriff and receive no respect in return.
Indeed, the light anti-Americanism that prevails in many countries helped by
the US may eventually boost the fortunes of American isolationists by making
such understanding impossible.

But such perilous carelessness is not only the province of light
anti-Americans. US politicians and government leaders have long been
disdainful and careless about the ill effects of light anti-Americanism.
Among Washington's heavies, the common wisdom is that murderous, fanatical,
anti-Americans cannot be swayed and must be dealt with by security and law
enforcement agencies while the faddish actions of light anti-Americans are
largely inconsequential.

Several months ago a bi-partisan group of highly respected US foreign policy
experts outside the government held several discreet meetings to discuss
their concern about the growing tide of anti-Americanism worldwide. The
group eventually drafted a private letter to Mr Bush calling his attention
to the urgent need to do something about it. The cabinet member they asked
to deliver the letter responded that it would not have much impact unless it
spelled out the concrete costs of anti-Americanism.

Today, Tony Blair, José Mara Aznar, Silvio Berlusconi and Vicente Fox among
others can clearly spell out the costs of the light anti-Americanism that
pervades their societies. It has made it increasingly costly for them at
home to support Mr Bush, who in turn has learned that acting alone entails
huge costs and risks. Many of the problems the US faces will only get worse
if it tries to solve them unilaterally.

Yes, it can attack Iraq without the blessing of the UN. But its military
needs bases in other countries, its terrorist fighters need the help of
other intelligence services (even those of France), its financial regulators
need to work closely with regulators abroad, and its nation builders in
Afghanistan and soon in Iraq need the help and the money of other countries.

The US has discovered that it depends as much on the good will of other
governments as it does on the lethal efficacy of its military to achieve its
international goals. In turn that good will is dependent on the mood and
attitudes of domestic constituencies. That is why the ascendancy of light
anti-Americanism is a dangerous trend - and not only for Americans.

The writer is editor of Foreign Policy magazine



http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511063135&p=1012571727088



_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~