Will anti-Americanism end if Barack Obama becomes President?
In all of our briefings, our authors aim to make a reasonable case and supply the facts and referencing to support the argument made. But some briefings make a more controversial case than others. We consider this one of our more controversial briefings.
Most surveys of global opinion suggest that Barack Obama is the world’s preferred candidate to replace George W Bush. This has led many observers to believe that a victory for Barack Obama will largely end the anti-Americanism of recent years. The reality is more complicated.
Any new
President has an opportunity to begin restoring America’s standing in the world
Whoever is
elected on Tuesday 4th November 2008 most of the world – rightly or
wrongly - will be glad to see George W Bush’s presidency come to its
end. His international approval ratings are very poor. Any new President
will have an opportunity to give America a fresh start. John McCain’s
differences with the Bush administration on environmental policies, Guantanamo
Bay and aggressive interrogation techniques such as waterboarding make him
better placed than almost any other Republican to appeal to fairer-minded
international citizens.
But it is the election of Senator Barack Obama that is likely to have the most electric effect on world opinion (at least in the short-run). Opinion surveys suggest that the Democrat nominee is the favoured choice of the average citizen in nations across the world, especially Europe.[1] His opposition to the Iraq war, his support for multilateral institutions like the UN and his sophisticated speaking style will appeal to many of the people who have been the loudest critics of George W Bush. The election of America’s first black President will also have a dramatic effect. This has even been acknowledged by Senator Obama’s political opponents. Mike Gerson, for example - former chief speechwriter to President George W Bush, has talked of the “dramatic” power of President Obama’s election.[2]
But
anti-Americanism did not begin with George W Bush and it wouldn’t end with
Barack Obama in the White House
The attacks of
9/11 were the ugliest and bloodiest ever manifestation of
anti-Americanism. They may have happened when George W Bush was in the
White House but they were planned when President Clinton was
Commander-in-Chief. They were executed when Bush was still promising a
humbler, less interventionist foreign policy. Although most of the world
grieved with America in the weeks after 9/11, many of its critics
rejoiced. Le Monde did publish the headline ‘We Are All Americans’ after 11
September 2001 but noted in the text below: “[T]he reality is perhaps also that
of an America whose own cynicism has caught up with [it]”.[3] The US Ambassador to London was reduced to
tears after a hostile BBC Television audience attempted to blame American
foreign policy for the attacks on Washington and New
York. Anti-Americanism was alive and kicking before the invasions of
either Afghanistan and Iraq.
The engines of
anti-Americanism aren’t just American political policy
It would also be
a grave mistake to believe that current White House policy is the only engine
of anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism is partly a
function of America’s hegemonic status. It has accumulated over a
long time.[4] Just
as George W Bush inherited anti-American feeling that grew under the presidency
of Bill Clinton, so the 44th US President will suffer from the anti-Americanism
that grew up under the eight Bush years. There is also anti-Americanism
associated with America’s cultural and economic power. Hollywood’s often
sexually-explicit and violent films, for example, are resented in many more
traditional societies. Michael Medved has contrasted the output of
today’s Hollywood with the much winsome era of Frank Capra, Jimmy Stewart and
Cary Grant.[5]
American economic power is also resented. Brands such as McDonalds and
Coca Cola are simultaneously consumed in their billions and loathed across the
world. American capitalism and multinationals figure prominently in
anti-American literature.
We conclude
this briefing with four special reasons why anti-American feeling might persist
or even grow under a President Obama.
Barack Obama
will remain a staunch ally of Israel
Much
anti-Americanism – particularly in Europe and the Middle East – is associated
with US solidarity with Israel. Although some blogs worry about the
anti-Israel credentials of some of Barack Obama’s advisers it is also true that
Senator Obama has gone out of his way to reassure Israel that he is its
friend. His June 2008 statement, for example, that Jerusalem should
remain the capital of Israel and should “remain undivided” is a more hawkish
position than any ever adopted by George W Bush. That and a promise to “eliminate”
the threat posed to Israel by Iran’s nuclear ambitions brought rapturous
applause when he made the statement to the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee.[6]
Obama may not be able to live up to expectations on global warming
If a President
Obama may disappoint global critics of US policy towards Israel he may also
struggle to please those observers who see Bush-era America as an obstacle to
action on climate change. President Bush has slowly been forced to adopt
a position more sympathetic to the consensus on global warming but he is not
the only obstacle to the kind of action favoured by most world leaders.
The recent defeat[7] of the
Lieberman-Warner ‘Climate Security Act’ by the Democrat-controlled Senate
suggests that high expectations of radical US-led action on the environment are
unlikely to be realised.
A rapid withdrawal from Iraq might bring new problems
Although the
invasion of Iraq and the violent insurgency that followed have been leading
causes of the anti-Americanism of recent years there is also a real danger that
new forms of resentment might follow a precipitate withdrawal. The surge
of troops and change of tactics overseen by General David Petraeus has produced
a significant reduction in violence. If the fast withdrawal favoured by
Barack Obama undid that progress and Iraq descended into renewed sectarian
strife it is not difficult to see Iraq returning to the top of BBC and other
international news bulletins, with America blamed for the chaos and possible
civil war.
Democrat
protectionism may bring new problems
Although George W
Bush began his time in office with an unfortunate series of measures that
'protected' the steel industries of swing states like West Virginia he leads a
party that is less vulnerable to the protectionist instincts of organised
labour. On RealClearPolitics
Steve Chapman noted[8] how the
Democrats are becoming an increasingly anti-free trade party. During his
presidential campaign John Kerry accelerated the trend with his pledge to
reward companies that kept jobs in the USA instead of outsourcing them.
On a recent trip to Kenya Senator Obama declared his support for subsidies
which protect American farmers by arguing that he had to look out for the
interests of the people he represents. He recently joined with other
Democrats in opposing a free trade pact with Colombia[9] and questioned free trade with Canada.[10]
In conclusion
Economic
protectionism is just one manifestation of the drawbridge mentality popular
amongst some Democrats and, in particular, amongst its netroots. Bush is
hated by many around the world for intervening in Afghanistan and
Iraq. But non-intervention may also bring opposition. Ronald Reagan’s
withdrawal of American forces from the Lebanon in 1983 in response to terrorism
may only have served to embolden terrorism in the long-run. George H. W. Bush’s
decision against removing Saddam Hussein after repelling Iraqi forces from
Kuwait lead to over a decade of damaging Western sanctions. Non-intervention
in Rwanda by Bill Clinton was likewise not without its moral problems[11] and his administration's inaction
against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan ensured 9/11 could go ahead. With the
world entering dangerous new phases of the age of terror there is only really
one nation that has the power to pre-empt threats. Bush is disliked for
using that American power but any future decision not to exercise that power
could also create serious tensions. Think, for example, of nations like
Iran being allowed to become dangerous and untouchable powers; sponsoring global
terrorism, destabilising world markets and bullying neighbours. Whatever
path America chooses – interventionism or non-interventionism etc, some won’t
like it.
[1] 'Barack Obama beats John McCain in European vote: US election 2008', David Blair, The Daily Telegraph, 3 June 2008, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2049446/Barack-Obama-beats-John-McCain-in-European-vote-US-election-2008.html
[2] 'Barack Obama is 'extraordinary talent,' says Michael Gerson, The Times, 26 March 2008, at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3628100.ece: “So much of our history is the history of race and it would be an historic day in America for him to take the oath of office on the West Front of the Capitol, given how divisive these issues have been. It will take place 100 yards from where there used to be slave pens, where slaves were sold in the 19th century. It will be a dramatic moment, one of the great culminating moments of American history.”
[3] 'Release and Review of the Subcommittee Report: 'The decline in America's reputation: why?', Markup and hearing before the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Second Session, 11 June 2008, p.6, at http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/42904.pdf
[4] Robert Kagan has written for the Washington Post about participating in a panel discussion where critics of anti-Americanism remembered six decades of reasons to resent America: 'Anti-Americanism's Deep Roots', Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, 19 June 2006, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800900.html
[5] 'That's entertainment? Hollywood's contribution to anti-Americanism abroad', Michael Medved, The National Interest, 1 July 2002, at http://www.allbusiness.com/government/3583980-1.html
[6] 'Obama pledges support for Israel', BBC, 4 June 2008, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7435883.stm
[7] 'Why the Climate Bill Failed', Eric Pooley, Time, 9 June 2008, at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812836,00.html
[8] 'The Coming Democratic War on Free Trade', Steve Chapman, RealClearPolitics, 14 January 2007, at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/the_coming_democratic_war_on_f.html
[9] A position that John McCain has sought to exploit: 'John McCain Web Ad: Columbia Free Trade', YouTube, 30 June 2008, at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=V22IMLtlmRI
[10] 'Obama will give free trade a rough ride', Tony Parkinson, The Age, 17 June 2008, at http://business.theage.com.au/business/obama-will-give-free-trade-a-rough-ride-20080616-2ros.html
[11] 'Bystanders to Genocide', Samantha Power, The Atlantic Monthly,
September 2001, at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide
