[Culturechat] "you Americans" "the French

[Hal Taussig]

I agree with Michael about the need for rational discussion--not so easy on 
the subject of anti-Americanism. This subject is especially important to 
those of us who sponsor (and those who participate in) international 
travel. But it is vital to--perhaps the very survival of--the whole world. 
I got a pile of requests for the Gareth Evans' full speech, which is 
encouraging me to paste in a couple of sections of the speech here. I do so 
hoping, I repeat, to stir up rational discussion about a topic that has 
seemed to generate considerable hostile verbiage in this space.
Hal

 From the middle part of the speech... [after a long critique of US policy]...

Understanding from the Rest of Us. On the part of the rest of the world, 
particularly America's traditional allies, what I think is first required 
is a little bit more empathy, a little better understanding and 
appreciation of what makes the U.S. tick, and what is driving some of the 
current behaviour, and language, that upsets the rest of us so much.

The first dimension that is critical here is simply fear: raw, genuine and 
realistic. For all our sympathy after 911, we sometimes forget that more 
people were killed in that single attack than in all the terrorist 
incidents in Israel and Ireland combined for the last 50 years, and that 
there is every reason to believe that that or worse could happen again, 
with ' for all the vulnerability the rest of us are feeling, not least 
after Bali - the U.S. and its citizens still being overwhelmingly the most 
likely targets.



Chris Patten, the European Commissioner for External Relations, has 
recently made the point well:



The extent of the US trauma was not, perhaps, fully appreciated in Europe: 
the sense of violation felt by a people who had believed themselves to be 
invulnerable. The subsequent 'war on terrorism' has been understood in 
Europe as a metaphor: a phrase to describe the myriad responses required of 
the civilised world to address problems that do not allow of definitive 
solutions, let alone of military ones. America, by contrast, has really 
felt itself to be at war, and it is a war that has ratcheted up patriotic 
sentiment to unparalleled heights.



The second thing we in the rest of the world need to remind ourselves of 
are just some basic cultural differences that we need to take into account 
in responding to the US, just as we like to have them taken into account in 
dealing with us. A lot of the things that we, elsewhere, take to be over 
the top, and reflective of hubris, or arrogance or worse, or claiming a 
closer relationship with the Almighty than most of the rest of us can 
manage, and which do generate a little bit of reflexive anti-Americanism at 
least elsewhere in the West, are simply a matter of confusing the substance 
with trappings.



U.S. public language is far more routinely and emotively 'patriotic' than 
one finds elsewhere, certainly in Australia and Britain; it is also draws, 
routinely, far more on religious concepts and metaphors ' including 
Manichaean language of good vs. evil ' than most of the rest of us find 
comfortable. We have to understand that, and live with it.



And the third thing we need to remind ourselves of, in the rest of the 
world, is that a good deal of what we are minded to describe as American 
behaviour is simply party political or individual behaviour, the luck for 
the moment of the political draw. Though Democrat administrations have not 
been immune in the past from many of the charges now being directed to this 
Republican one, it is reasonable to assume that if those handful of ballot 
papers had been called differently in Florida the debate about the use of 
American power ' at the very least its style, if not its substance ' would 
have taken a rather different course over the last two years.



The truth of the matter is that there is always tension in this country 
between elements of isolationism, imperialism , internationalism- 
multilateralism and unilateralism; between what Tom Friedman calls 'America 
OnDuty' vs. 'America OnLine'; or between what George Soros refers to as 
'the pursuit of hegemony' vs. 'the vision of global open society'. The 
wheels have turned often enough in the past, and they are bound to turn 
again. We should resist the temptation to resist over-dramatising what may 
be just a transient phase.



Moreover, it is important to recognise that every new Administration climbs 
a learning curve, and it may be that we should see the embrace by the Bush 
Administration of a multilateralist route on Iraq, at least for now, and 
maybe also its very realistically muted response to the recent challenge 
from North Korea, as the beginning of a more fundamental and far-reaching 
change of general approach



Engagement from the Rest of Us. There's another dimension necessary in the 
response of the rest of the world: it's not just understanding that's 
required, but engagement. If we in the rest of the world really do want to 
come out from down underneath, and have a less overborne and unequal 
relationship with the Big Enchilada, we have to recognise that it's up to 
us to approach our relationships with the US in a mature and constructive 
way - pulling our own weight in world affairs to the extent of our 
capacity, helping out on the tough and necessary military tasks to the 
extent of our capacity, supporting and not retreating from hard calls in 
the UN when they become necessary, and generally, when we confront the 
omnipresent reality of American power, being neither petulant whiners about 
the iniquity of it all, nor pathetic acolytes, happy to lie on our backs 
like puppy dogs with four paws waving and pink tummies exposed.



I say all this from the perspective of someone who did live and breathe all 
these issues in a very practical way for nearly eight years, from 1988-96, 
as the foreign minister of Australia - a country with not very much 
military or economic power, which was and will certainly remain an 
absolutely steadfast ally of the US (fighting alongside the US in every war 
it fought last century and the beginning of this, a record shared by no one 
else), but which nonetheless had (at least when my party was in 
government!) a mind of its own on a great many issues and a certain 
unwillingness to play the role of poodle.

...and toward the end of his speech Evans says:

Empathy and Language. I spoke before about the need for the rest of us to 
work hard at understanding and empathising with the U.S. in the stresses 
and challenges it faces. But that's a two way street too. Hard as it is, it 
is crucial that U.S. decision makers try to put themselves in the other 
guy's shoes. Paul Kennedy put the issue very well recently, writing in the 
Wall Street Journal:



How do we appear to them, and what would it be like were our places in the 
world reversed' ... Suppose that there existed today a powerful, unified 
Arab-Muslim state that stretched from Algeria to Turkey and Arabia'as there 
was 400 years ago, the Ottoman Empire. Suppose that this unified 
Arab-Muslim state had the biggest economy in the world, and the most 
effective military. Suppose that by contrast this United States of ours had 
split into 12 or 15 countries, with different regimes, some conservative 
and corrupt. Suppose that the great Arab-Muslim power had its aircraft 
carriers cruising off our shores, its aircraft flying over our lands, and 
paid the corrupt, conservative governments big royalties for that. Suppose 
that it dominated all international institutions like the Security Council 
and the IMF.



Suppose that there was a special state set up in North America fifty years 
ago, of a different religion and language to ours, and the giant 
Arab-Muslim power always gave it support. Suppose the colossus state was 
bombarding us with cultural messages, about the status of women, about 
sexuality, that we found offensive. Suppose it was always urging us to 
change, to modernize, to go global, to follow its example. Hmm...in those 
conditions, would not many Americans steadily grow to loath that colossus, 
wish it harm' And perhaps try to harm it' I think so.'



Part of the process of putting yourself in the other guy's shoes is to use 
language that you know won't cause gratuitous offence, or be 
counterproductive. It's not a matter of overdoing the syrup - and in fact 
there may be a bit more syrup than the market can already stand in some of 
the proselytising done by the U.S. on behalf of freedom and democracy, 
particularly when it comes across as the U.S. bestowing its own values upon 
the benighted, rather than sharing in and advocating a common set of 
universal values.

Above all what is to be avoided if at all possible is any sense of either 
exceptionalism or triumphalism in the language that American leaders 
employ, simply because it is so counterproductive. Heavy handedness by the 
U.S. makes it much more politically difficult for leaders abroad to side 
with Washington on issues like terrorism or containing Iraq. Whether it is 
German anger over Kyoto or a Yemeni public backlash against a military 
campaign in Iraq, or Indonesian concerns with perceived one-sidedness in 
dealing with Israeli-Palestinian issues, the US needs to know that needless 
triumphalism carries a direct cost.



Soft Power. Let my very last word be on the subject of 'soft power', a 
concept given much attention recently in the writing of Joseph Nye in 
particular. I don't think it is even now appreciated how much of the 
positive influence and reputation and respect enjoyed by the U.S. in the 
rest of the world flows from the belief out there that America really does 
stand for a better world and is the best hope of those who want to achieve 
it. As Tony Judt has recently put it, 'What gives the US its formidable 
influence is not its unequalled capacity for war, but the trust of others 
in its good intentions.'







AnAt 02:22 PM 4/22/03 -0400, Michael Greene wrote:
>Perhaps some of you are tired of seeing correspondents to Culturechat 
>referring to "the French" or "You Americans". I am! Please if an argument 
>is to be pursued please deal with factual issues and leave out "the", or 
>"you". Some Americans supported the war(some more reluctantly than 
>others), some did not. Some were jerks about their positions. Some arrived 
>at their positions rationally. Some did not. Which of these groups 
>constituted "you Americans"?
>I do not know what "the French" , or for that matter any other group of 
>people, think because they like people all over the world are a diverse lot.
>Ask me however why Bush or Chirac did something and I will try to arrive 
>rationally at reasons. Dispute the reasons.Leave the "name calling out"
>Thanks.

=================================================
Untours - Independent Travel With Support!
Tel.: 888-UNTOUR-1 Web: <http://www.untours.com>

Join IdyllChat, an email discussion group on European travel!
Visit: <www.untours.com/idyllchat/>

"Most Generous Company in America, 1999" awarded by Newman's
Own & George magazine. For information on the Idyll Development
Foundation, visit: <www.untours.com/idf>