America in the World

What do Americans think of Britain?

America In The World's poll of almost 2,000 Britons, asking their views of the United States, drew much attention. The greatest response we received was to the section of the poll testing Britons' knowledge of America. Is anti-Americanism grounded in a good understanding of the country or a level of ignorance? The answers to the poll suggested some of the latter.

But one fair question kept arising in the responses: do Americans know that much about Britain? Even if Britons do wrongly think that polygamy is legal in some states or that America played a major role arming Saddam Hussein, don't Americans entertain similar misconceptions? Isn't it simply the case that no people can know other countries better than their own?

But there is a key difference. While polls show anti-Americanism to be rife among many in Britain, polls of Americans demonstrate exceptionally pro-British attitudes. Even if Americans are uninformed about Britain, it does not lead to anti-British sentiment.

In February 2006, the BBC World Service released the results from its poll of just under 40,000 people in 33 countries. It found that Americans thought Britain's influence on the world is mainly positive rather than mainly negative by a margin of 71% to 14%, or about five to one. Most surprisingly, Americans said they thought their own country's influence on the world is mainly positive rather than mainly negative by a margin of only 63% to 30%, or about two to one.

In some ways, this is a discouraging result for America In the World. We're unambiguously with the 63%, and wish that figure to be higher. But that Americans when polled can think more highly of Britain's influence than their own country's certainly acquits Americans of any charge of ignorant chauvinism towards Britain. If Americans aren't well-informed about Britain, then they like Britain in any case. By contrast, Britons in the same poll said America had a mainly negative influence by a margin of 57% to 36%.

A President popular in Europe may not be the most effective Commander-in-Chief

AITW's Tim Montgomerie writes for today's Guardian about the kind of world policeman that that the US should be.  The Guardian cut out a number of words and you can read the slightly longer version below.

The key argument is that America may not prosper if it does what many Europeans want.  Yes, working multilaterally is important but so is the pre-emption of threats.  A passage edited out by The Guardian summarises America's dilemma in its relationship with the world:

"World opinion, rightly called the second superpower, should not stop America from taking the toughest decisions.  To a great extent America is damned whatever it does.  It will be hated for attacking Iran. It will be hated if it does nothing and a nuclear-armed Tehran starts holding the Middle East to ransom.  This impossible position has been the lot of every great power from Rome at its height to the British Empire at its height. At the very same time America is loathed by one corner of the world for its Hollywood licentiousness and by another corner for its religious fervour.  An America that seeks to be loved may end up neither loved nor respected."

Barack Obama seeks extension of NATO and more commitment from European powers to Afghanistan

Barack Obama’s foreign policy document setting forth his strategy towards Europe (PDF) outlines an approach that is supportive of NATO, engaged economically with European economies and mindful of the threat of rogue states.

For an organisation dedicated to American engagement with the world and opposed to anti-Americanism, none of the documents available at BarackObama.com could be more relevant than ‘A stronger partnership with Europe for a Safer America’. As is typical of any political statements, there are a number of sentences with which almost no one would disagree – and so not especially telling as any indicator of policy. But in places the document goes further. Without outlining many specific policies, it provides some guide to the policy approach the presumptive Democratic candidate would aim to follow if elected President.

NATO and Afghanistan
Straightforwardly positive statements on NATO’s role - “Barack Obama believes that a strong NATO brings peace and security to Europe and helps the United States meet security challenges around the world” – are mixed with pledges that “Barack Obama will ask more of our European friends”. This will be applied to Afghanistan specifically (a “critically important mission”):

“Obama will expect allies to commit more resources to this common mission and to remove some of the limits on what their troops in country can do. Barack Obama has called for the deployment of at least two additional brigades of U.S. troops to Afghanistan and would expect that to be matched by enhanced contributions from our NATO allies.”

This expectation that strong and continuing American support for NATO be twinned with greater European support is fair and welcome. Such positive language is a sign that Obama's response to the often justified feeling that Europe is not pulling its weight will be diplomatic pressure on Europe to do more, rather than America reducing her own commitment. Left unanswered is how America will react if, having made this request, many NATO allies persist with low levels of military commitment and spending.