Given that the news cycle is a bit slow, with excessive attention being given to the White House health care reform, something that I simply am not in the mood to get stressed out over, I was reading this article on an interesting UK-based blog “POLITICS | by scott” that I found (or rather, that found me). Though I disagree somewhat, I enjoy the way that the author logically approaches the issue. Here’s what troubled me:

He writes: “the real driver of anti-Americanism is dissatisfaction with American policy, not any deeper ideological or philosophical antipathy. On the extremes, of course, there is very real ideological hostility, but the great mass of people across the world retain a deep sense of affection and admiration both for the American system of government, and for its broader ideals.”

The portion I made bold is where I disagree… it may have to do with geo-historic differences between Mr. Scott Green, living in the UK, and myself, an American of Cuban descent living in Miami, FL. Then again, I don’t really know the man, so maybe not.

The real driver of anti-Americanism is the fact that the modern world is ideology, in the sense of the word “driver.” The second driver is the fact that we are the last remaining superpower, the Goliath to their David if you will. Of course I must qualify what I mean by anti-Americanism. The anti-American sentiment of the developed world and of “democratic” nations is one that emerges from our immediate policies, not from the fact that we are who we are, so therefore cannot be accurately referred to as anti-Americanism. Even friends have disagreements, see France or Germany during Bush. These nations simply oppose policies without opposing America itself, just like conservatives in this country may have renamed french fries to “freedom fries” but would be the first ones in line to defend France if it were attacked by Al Qaeda or invaded by Russia. I doubt the people or government of France would celebrate a second 911 simply because they hated Bush.

Which brings me to the real anti-Americanism in the world. From Russia to Saudi Arabia to Venezuela, anti-Americanism spreads for its own reasons, yet all are ideological. They use events in history to justify their interpretation of the world and even in a post-Bush era will not change the tone nor intensity of their rhetorical attacks. They control the media to convince their populations that we must be feared and/or hated. The error they make is perceiving US foreign policy to be a relentless imperial mission and not as one that changes as civilian leadership and ideas change. These regimes are threatened by the mere existence of a system that promotes the idea that the people, not individual leaders or demagogues, should have the right to choose their destinies. This runs contrary to communism. This runs contrary to religious fundamentalism. This runs contrary to authoritarianism in general.

The best example from both study and experience is Cuba under Castro. The Castro revolution benefited directly from US pressure (embargo and diplomatic isolation) on then-dictator Fulgencio Batista. Much aid for the revolution came from the US based exiles. The US was one of the first countries to formally recognize Fidel Castro’s government, which achieved power through acts of terror and violence, bombing theaters and killing civilians. We basically installed Castro! Yet for ideological reasons, at first it was a nationalistic populism and later it evolved into full-fledged communism, that Castro turned on the United States, seizing US assets. Subsequently, Cuba funded and trained guerrilla armies that would destabilize Latin America for decades simply to fulfill the international communist ambitions of Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, and Ernesto Che Guevara. To make the hatred of the United States permanent, total control of the media produced non-stop propaganda blaming America for everything that went wrong in Cuba, some accusations true and some not, yet all weaving the story that the “evil” American “empire” was plotting an invasion of Cuba.

Irony

This message has spread to all of Latin America, magnified in countries where state control of media is progressing, like Venezuela and Bolivia. Nothing that the Obama administration has done or will do can change the fact that anti-Americanism will play a central role in the politics of these demagogues. Obama extended a hand to Chavez and backed his ally Mel Zelaya, yet Chavez still accused Washington of orchestrating the Honduran coup. Obama softened the US embargo on Cuba and did not protests when the Organization of American States lifted their suspension of the communist controlled island, yet the Castro brothers have continued with their 50 year-old message of hating America.

Venezuelan mural

For these regimes to survive, they must reject the philosophy of liberal democracy and particularly the principal defender of this notion: the United States. It also works the other way around, freedom loving people cannot accept the existence of a totalitarian regime anywhere in the world. Americans cannot stand idly by while China or North Korea brutally crushes internal dissent, at least not indefinitely.

My disagreement with Mr. Green is simply labeling dissatisfaction with US policy as “anti-Americanism.” That is overly broad. Anti-Americanism is a reality in the world and will not be solved by any new administration or new policy. The only policy that the Anti-American Axis wants is complete withdrawal of the US from the world… so that they can have the space they need to fulfill their plans. For Venezuela, it is the Bolivarian Revolution to sweep Latin America (Simon Bolivar’s old Latin American superstate). For Russia is to reconstitute itself as a global power. For Al Qaeda, it is the re-establishment of the caliphate across Asia and Africa. America’s mission is much less aggressive: a more free and more just world for all. And this point is where I agree with Mr. Green: simply relying on hard power, on military might will never achieve this goal… smart power is needed. Democracy cannot be forced upon people, and should not. This is why conservatives flocked to Bush when he pledged “no nation building.” This is why conservatives winced when we were stuck doing just that in Iraq. America has many weapons in its arsenal: economic, diplomatic, military, etc. We must use them all. Bush’s initial reliance on the military was counterproductive… but to his credit, he was starting to correct his mistakes in his second term.

What we have now is not smart power… it is a near-complete about-face on foreign policy that assumes that everything done by Bush is wrong. This assumption is as foolish as the Bush administration’s assumption that stabilizing Iraq would be a cakewalk. We are not moving towards smart power as we should, we are moving towards soft power. From domestic spending that is weakening the dollar to a foreign policy that seems too timid, our enemies are taking note and will not waste this opportunity to make this “unipolar moment” in history a distant memory. So let us earnestly hope that the new administration will be shouted down, sniped at and second-guessed until they finally achieve that balance that America’s foreign policy needs.

While I may be challenging Mr. Green’s interpretation of anti-Americanism and the new administration, he should look on the bright side… I just gave him some free promo.

-AG