Is USA Hated or Loved Around The World?

Decimon, this is the latest news here:

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20051004&hn=24897

It was Mrs. (Miss?) Rice´s intervention who made the entire difference.

 

And I have experienced that in the first person through all the years I lived in the US. However, some people here think that the US considers Europe its backyard. Some of us, looking at the recent and far past, are happy it is like that. Others, like our Napoleonic "brothers" here, think it is humilliating, and against "our" interests. Whose interests I wonder. They quickly forgot those Americans buried in French soil, for instance. But don´t worry, in this chess game, the US scored yesterday a very important goal.

 

Preceding the EU was the Common Market so D'Estaing would appear to object not to freer trade but to the inclusion of Turkey.

 

The inclussion of Turkey will make the EU an economic giant, but a political dwart since the decision making process will be absolutely imposible (Turkey, a large Muslim country would have as much political weight as Germany or France). The EU 25 aspired, until yesterday, to speak with just one voice in world affairs, to have a unique Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That´s what Giscard means by the death of the political EU. The superstate would be dead if Turkey finally enters (which may or may not take place in the future). Giscard is notagainst the free trade, what he resents is that the EU ONLY can be a free trade area!

 

Going back to the original question somewhat the jury is firmly out.

The people in some of the world's poorer countries hold the USA in great esteem, and almost reverence, as it holds the 'Dream', which is not just an American dream, but a dream of any ordinary person who wants more than their slum offers. Hollywood is the America so many see and so many want.

The European states have a sliding scale of arrogance, based largely on historical power. This probably reflects the level of contempt they hold the USA in. France being at the top.
One exception is my country; the UK. We have a strange relationship with the USA. The average UK Joe on the street would probably have a chuckle at much of US culture, but at the same time acknowledges the ties and secretly probably has some affection for it.

The USA is just big, big in every sense. It's high profile stance means it has to be liked or loathed or at least talked about.

Far more important for me are the people. The Americans have some quirks, but look at us Brits, a little unconventional at the best of times. My boss is American and one of the finest people I have met, a true gent. Governments and policies will always be hated, and US policy and the USA so often get confused.
The majority of Americans are fine people and undeserving of the stigma their countrys' global super-power position sometimes carries.

Good to see this potentially fiery thread has stayed civil!

Peace,

Dave C.

 

Well, Steve, Dr. Miss, or Mrs. Rice. It doesn’t really matter. Yesterday she straightened out the entire continent. Every one was doing genuflexions, bowing their heads, looking down, and whispering: Yes, Ma`am.

 

Yeah?

C'mon, Dave C.

Do you REALLY cherish union with the froggies??

 

There's hope for all of you yet.

How did Secretary of State Rice manage to straighten out the entire continent? (A tremendous job.) About what? (I'd have thought that Europeans were congenitally un-straighten-outable.)

About Turkey? Why would Europeans be influenced by whatever it is that the US government says on that issue? That's Europe's issue, not ours.

Here's what I suspect the US is up to: We probably expect that the EU will ultimately turn the Turks down or else drag their accession process out forever. The Turks will end up feeling rejected and might get angry. So the US is kind of positioning itself as Turkey's friend and ally, hoping to head off any possible anti-Western reaction, and perhaps even pick up some closer ties if Turkey is alienated from from the EU.

 

I think that adding Turkey to the EU would be a tremendous mistake. The cultural differences, the economic disparity, the impact of extending Europe's borders and sphere of concern deep into the Middle East, the festering problem of the Kurds. If the Turks get the option of living anywhere in Europe they choose, there will be huge Islamic minorities of hundreds of thousands in many major European capitals. And since it will be impossible to seal Turkey's borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria these nationalities will start filling up your cities as well.

I don't think that the United States opposes that. We only oppose the vision of European power that measures its success by its ability to stand in opposition to the US and stare us down.

Personally, I really like the uniqueness of the individual European countries. I like their cultures, their languages, their histories, their styles and contributions. I think that it would be a tragedy if European countries just became provinces in a larger state and their uniqueness was homogenized away into Euro-blandness.

But I understand and sympathize with Europeans' desire to band together and be strong, to restore their continent's historic influence. (Which is something I like too.)

So the problem is balancing individual soverignty with some kind of limited federalism.

Perhaps Europeans should put their "ever closer union" rhetoric on hold. Instead of grandiose but hollow talk, they should devote their efforts to making their current less ambitious arrangements work. If Europe ever aspires to a "unique Ministry of Foreign Affairs", maybe they should work on improving their ability to speak with one coherent voice now. If they ever hope to be a world military power, maybe the various European militaries should strengthen their joint command, control and logistics structures and engage in more joint European projects. (The current EU security responsibility in Bosnia is a start.)

But when things move from fine-sounding rhetoric to real initiatives, it's hard to see the Europeans all unanimously getting together under the guidance of Brussels for the forseeable future. Perhaps the EU will end up being a framework for various multilateral initiatives that some but not all of its members sign on to, similar to the Euro currency zone. That way the "ever closer union" inner-core group can forge ahead of the more independent members without coercing the latter or banishing them from the EU entirely.

 

I thought the last sentence of the article summed it up nicely: "It also urged the streamlining of visa procedures for international students."

My neighbors are noisy drunks so I don't visit them. If you don't like people why go there?

 

Ha! The very idea makes me laugh uncontrollably.

 

Part of that strange relationship may be due to the way U.S. citizens and U.K. citizens view each other. Interesting comment on the average UK Joe. The average U.S. Joe has a tendency to view his U.K. counterpart as something apart from "European". Maybe it's the common language, though some Brits would argue that acutal English is not spoken in the U.S., or maybe it's the way Brits seem to have of somehow distinguishing themselves from others. I'm not sure I can explain what that means, you either know it or you don't, but you know it when you see it. As one example, I have always admired the British ability to verbally tear someone apart, yet remain exceedingly polite while doing so. That's a quality few other Europeans posess, and few Americans as well, it seems to be uniquely British.


Kit

 

There's a reason it's called "English". The English (as opposed to other U.K. species) use the language SO beautifully and effortlessly...makes me feel like a hick from the sticks!

 

Well...uhh...Las Cruces?

 

Interesting; and upon reflection I realise that we Brits do too.
Thankfully so. It's great being an island.

Peace,

Dave C.

 

Yeah, thankfully so....

 

The US has two issues at stake. One, the democratization of the Middle East. Turkey is the first brick. And, two, the dismantling of the political EU. Having Turkey aboard would make impossible deeper integration.

European leaders are constructing a Europe which is far, far away from what EU citizens wish. Many people fear that the EU is being refeudalized; leaders take decisions that often are contrary to the opinion of a stunning majority of the population. According to them, citizens lack the vision to understand the scope of such decisions…... American leaders are said to govern with the polls at hand. In principle I don’t see anything wrong with that, especially when yu are taking controversial decisions. If governments ask EU citizens on Turkey the reaction will be clear and loud. In some countries like Germany, Denmark, or Austria (where there are higher concentrations of Turkish emigrants) as much as 80% of citizens are against Turkish membership.

The US resents Turkey for what it did in the last Iraq war (it forbid America to use US bases in Turkish soil and cross borders through the Kurdistan). Last Monday a well known American political figure, Frank Gaffney defined Erdogan, t he Turkish PM as an Islamo Fascist in an article in the Washington Post. Pretty obvious what those people think at the personal level but are able to distinguish it from national interests. America´s two main objectives in both the EU and the Middle East are stronger enough to overcome that disdain. And Turkey plays a crucial role in both.

 

Turks can´t take their eyes off of the EU coffers that has 15 billions waiting for them as a result of Monday´s decision. Turkey has the largest IMF debt of the world. Perhaps American interests in Turkey´s admission can be better understoodwithin this context.

I doubt Turkey will ever get accepted as a full member. Maybe they are given a watered down membership within 10-20 years. I am sure a mechanism to accommodate Turkey in the European family will be articulated. They are all afraid Turkey goes the wrong way, whatever that means.

 

Well, I think the US wants to stop further integration because of those very reasons. The US and Europe compete for exports. Our economy is way less efficient than yours so often we lose. Reforms are needed in the labor and social markets, but in the mean time we need to export at a furious rate. If HP, for instance, fires 2,000 people, Washington, a strong government in a strong state will tell them to do it in Europe or elsewhere. Without having a strong Brussels, HP will do exactly that. A strong European Commission will penalize HP for doing that, and might decide to fire after all 1000 here, 1000 there. Is this the type of opposition that Americans resent? (In your words, [...] We only oppose the vision of European power that measures its success by its ability to stand in opposition to the US [...] )

Bill, I think a free trade area between Nafta and the EU, common rules, competition, etc,... will be the best solution in the future especially when you realize that both markets combined are only half than that of China! Common sense will prevail in the long term above any other consideration.

I have the same opinion. There should be different tracks (and speeds) of integration, Sarkozy, the French Interior Minister and enemy of Chirac within the UMP, proposed a leading group formed by France, UK, Italy, Germany, Spain, and Poland. After all, a country is a just common coin and an army. We only need the latter. I would get rid of Britain though (due to their lack of commitment) but have the Benelux in.