newcity
Much ink is being spilled over the question of why the world hates the US. The real question should be, ‘why are people so surprised they DO?’
Which powerful nation in history has been loved? The Roman Empire? The Spanish empire? Perhaps the British, or Japanese? The fact is, powerful nations, by definition, cause change around the world. Those who are experiencing it generally oppose change. People tend to be conservative. Thus, globalization, the spread of capitalism, the ubiquitous presence of American culture (such as it is) cause change. And people oppose it, and oppose its source.
The universal presence of American business, American culture causes every nation to see itself as under attack. It also causes the source of these changes…Americans…to see these values as natural. Thus, there is a natural conflict between the US and areas of the world where long time values are changing in response to globalization.
The situation would be identical if the French, or British ‘ruled the world’ (so to speak). America is not an imperial power, but it is a dominating force that causes change. Hostility is inevitable.
And, there are basically 3 types of countries; Bad ones (e. g. the US and UK). These are nations which have done great evil, but have also done some good. Then, there are evil ones. Iraq, N. Korea, Germany….all have histories so vile that, no matter what contributions they’ve made to civilization, their crimes will follow them always. (Germany has, virtually alone in history, faced its past courageously. The Japanese, on the other hand, still have a problem in doing this). The 3rd type of nation is the majority; those who’ve never had power, and have generally sat on the sidelines during history.
Often the 3rd type are the victims when the first 2 type clash. They are used as pawns in the fray.
Nations are very poor at defining their own identities when faced with challenges. The West, in general, has a large radical left component that believes democracy flows from some inexhaustible source, some wellspring, and never needs defending. V. S. Naipul in his book “Among the Believers” wrote of traveling among Muslims who wanted to destroy the West, but believed the cars, VCR’s, movies, etc. would keep coming. Until each nation can define itself and decide how to change when faced with a challenge, hostility will always happen.
Happened to see today that an anti-American rally in S. Korea expected to draw 1 million actually got about 12,000. Maybe some Koreans are starting to see the light.
Republicans and conservatives (I repeat myself here) generally favor tax cuts even more than bathing regularly. This is standard policy for them, even in the face of massive budget deficits, and reduction in programs favored by middle class taxpayers.
Several recent articles have reviewed GOP tax policies, and conclude it favors, surprisingly enough, the rich. Shocked? The Republicans keep telling us that they are giving us our own money back, and that opinions to the contrary are ‘class warfare’. I guess killing the messenger is part of the tax cut.
Jeffery Sachs, formerly professor of Economics at Harvard, and now at Columbia, writes in the “Korea Herald” (registration required, koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2003/01/01/200301010025.asp):
“In view of these changed economic conditions, and the shadow of war in Iraq, you might expect the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress to be cautious in advocating new tax cuts. But no, their highest priority is to enact more tax cuts that will mainly benefit the rich. “
E. J. Dionne, writing in the “WaPo” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39211-2002Nov25¬Found=true)
“Prepare yourself for the latest cause of the political right: You are about to hear a great deal about how working Americans at the bottom of the economy are not paying enough in taxes.
And the truth is, low- and middle-income people do pay a lot in taxes. They just don't happen to pay the taxes that supply-side conservatives want to cut.”
GOP economists believe that since middle class folks will only spend tax cuts on wasteful things like food and clothing, while the rich invest, the rich should be the beneficiaries of any cuts. (Dionne’s article is exceptionally good at pointing out who pays what taxes).
What’s really offensive is the tendency of the GOP to fill the pockets of the rich, then pretend that even discussing the matter is an attempt to sow class division. GOP policies benefit the rich, but they’re so embarrassed about them, they don’t want anyone to know. The ‘death tax’ repeal, for example, will benefit about 3000 families, with almost all the money going to the top 2% of taxpayers. How does this benefit working people? The Republicans don’t say.
Conservatives in general have changed over the years. It’s no longer appropriate, for example, to be a racist. But the jaundiced view GOP economists have of those of us who actually work for a living has to make you wonder why anyone who doesn’t earn $200K votes Republican.
Part I
Is the world trying to accomplish a ‘balance of power’ trick on the cheap? Traditionally, most countries have felt most secure when there was a balance of power. The English went to war against both Napoleon and Hitler to preserve it in Europe. The status quo for the cold war was a balance between the US and USSR. One of the byproducts of this balance was integrating Germany into NATO, thus giving Germany protection from Soviet imperialism, and protecting Germany’s neighbors from Germany!
Today, the US is, in the words of French foreign minister Hubert Vedrin, a ‘hyperpower’. There is no military power, which can challenge the US, and few economic ones. Perhaps the EU will, in time come to match the US, but in military prowess, Europe will never spend what it takes to be a world class military power. (Whether or not that’s a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ thing is another matter).
However, it seems that much of the world is trying to accomplish a balance of power by refusing to confront murderous psychopathic dictators acquiring WMD’s, while insisting the US follow, in excruciating all the applicable rules of international law. This indecision is, itself, a decision, a de facto establishment of a policy which puts the only country capable of defending democracy face to face against the world’s most ruthless murderers.
By treating these rogue states as full fledged members of the international community, and insisting that national sovereignty be respected in each and every case, the international community is permitting these countries to develop a power base which can challenge US military power. A country like the US can afford an expensive military with nominal effects on its population. Our lack of national health insurance, for example, is a symptom of irrationality, not of poverty.
Part II
However, countries like North Korea, and Iraq, can maintain such expenditures only by literally starving their own people. In N. Korea, for example, up to 2M people may have starved to death while it spends about 30% of its GDP on the military. Iraq faces the same situation, with the added blessing of having much of the international community blame the US for the deaths of 500K Iraqi children. (This number, by the way, is demonstrably false; see both the article in the ‘Nation’, and the study by Dr. Richard Garfield of Columbia University).
The world is quite content to have millions die while it does nothing, allowing these nations to establish an ideology of disfunctionalism to challenge US power. It’s cheap for most nations; they don’t particularly care if millions die in Korea, or Iraq. And it forces the US to contain its military power within the context of international law.
Of course, such a system is inherently unstable. At some point, either these disfunctional countries will attack an India, or the US, unleashing nuclear war, or they will collapse, forcing the international community to confront countries ruled by warlords in possession of nuclear weapons.
Most countries seem content to go this way. Many feel that the US represents the greater threat since North Korea doesn’t threaten France, for example. It’s certainly true the US has behaved abominably in many cases over the years; so has every country which possessed great power. The US, in this respect, is not uniquely evil.
But forcing the US to lead the confrontation in every case, while screaming that the US that it itself is a rogue state, is useless. Proliferation of WMD’s will be the result, with every rogue state seeking to acquire them since there is no cost to do so. The international community will be content to feed their people (witness Iraq), while they are free to pursue whatever murderous policies they choose.
Until, of course, this house of cards collapses. Then there will be, literally, hell to pay.
Dante wrote in the “Inferno” that the deepest pit of hell is reserved for those who, when faced with a moral challenge, refuse to take sides. The US is not exercising leadership in attempting to place this issue before the international community. And the community itself seems happy to watch the US lumber along, a giant in the land of the Lilliputians, entrapped by killer states.
The US, for better or worse, is the only power on earth which can deter, for now, many of these countries. If and when a nuke goes off in Tokyo, Paris, or Moscow, it will be US troops who destroy those who planted it. Unless the international community is willing to confront rogue states, at the same time it insists the US remain under law, the future looks bleak.
I spent the weekend at the US Coast Guard Station in New York City (station Sandy Hook, NJ). As a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, I am a civilian volunteer radio operator, handling military, and search and rescue traffic for the Coast Guard station.
It’s a very strange experience, being at a military base. In civilian life, one has an unlimited set of choices. If you want to go to Florida, you go. If you want to get married, you do. If you want to train for a job, that’s your right.
But the military, even to those of us who are outsiders looking in, is much different. I’ve spent almost every weekend at the Station, perhaps 300 hours over the past year or so. The unrelenting focus on war, preparation for war, and attention to duty is quite different than the experiences in civilian life.
This war is not of our making. I was in New York as part of the Red Cross right after 9/11 and saw what the enemies of civilization were capable of. There is no question they must be destroyed.
But we pay a price. Our young people, admirable in service and dedication to their country, are learning the horrible, but necessary arts of war. Immersed in it, and with an older person’s view of life, the contrast was stark. As Pericles pointed out, democracies create in their citizens the desire to defend democracy. We are fortunate to have men and women who make this sacrifice. But it remains a tragedy that such sacrifice is needed.
