Britain and America

Britain still loves America after all

From today's Guardian: "Asked to pick Britain's best friend in the world, voters remain strongly pro-American, despite the impact of the Bush presidency. Only 29% of people think that Britain's warmest relations are with the European Union, against 64% who think they are with America."

Der Spiegel doesn't like George W Bush's America

Via the always readable Medienkritik blog, I discovered this collection of covers from Der Spiegel:

Der Spiegel's latest cover is the subject of this Medienkritik post.

Aspects of Anti-Americanism: America the Crime-Ridden

Much of the crude anti-Americanism we see today takes the form of allegations about American culture or lifestyle: that America is a horribly violent place, that Americans are fat, or stupid, or both, and so on. What I hope to do over the next few weeks is to examine the data that should inform us about these commonplace charges. I'm going to start with the most prevalent one when I was living in the UK - that America is a dangerous place to live.

The global stereotype remains that America is a largely lawless country, where death stalks the streets of New York every day and where casual visitors are likely to be gunned down by paranoid neighbors or policemen.

Yet this stereotype does not reflect reality, for a variety of reasons. The picture of America that emerges from a careful review of the evidence is one of a relatively crime-free society, one that should perhaps be proud of rather than apologetic for its crime rate.

These people make George Galloway look moderate...

Yesterday I posted about anti-Americanism from within America.  Gore and Clinton are the reasonable faces of that anti-Americanism.   There's an unreasonable, very ugly side to that anti-Americanism, too, and photographs of it have been captured on the ZombieTime Hall of Shame website.

Warning: The images below are taken from ZombieTime and are very offensive.  Click here to see more of them.

 

"The US is a great place to be anti-American"

Great piece in yesterday's Times from the indispensable Gerard Baker, the newspaper's US Editor.

Mr Baker noted the longstanding tradition that the USA's most effective critics have always been home-grown.  In the Vietnam era, for example, the fiercest critics were James Fonda, Bobby Kennedy and Marvin Gaye.  Today the leading critics are Al Gore (on the environment), Bill Clinton (on multilateralism) and the Hollywood brethren of Michael Moore - the latest output of which includes the film Rendition.  Click here for an overview of 'Hollywood's war on the Bush agenda'.

If there was any justice, the scale of internal criticism should caution those people who, as Baker writes, believe that the "wiretapping, Guantanamo-building, tourist-fingerprinting regime" of George W Bush "is terrifying Americans into quiet, desperate acquiescence."

The most important section of Gerry Baker's piece comes in the concluding paragraphs:

"The Americans who win global approbation in Oslo or at the UN are not simply critics of current American policy. They want to construct an international system that will for ever prevent the US from pursuing its own objectives, a system designed to dilute, counterbalance and constrain America’s ability to govern itself. They prefer a world in which American democracy is subordinated to a kind of global government, rule by a global elite, tasked to make decisions on everyone’s behalf in the name of multilateralism.

Al Gore wants the US to give up its economic autonomy and submit to rule by binding international obligations to curb its carbon emissions. Some of the Democratic candidates for the presidency want to tie down the American Gulliver under a web of global treaties. The British Government, if recent speeches by ministers are to be believed, is now apparently seriously committed to the idea that only the UN has the legitimacy to determine how nations should behave. In other words, that a system that gives vetoes to China and Russia and honours the human rights contributions of countries such as Syria or North Korea should be accorded a full role in the promotion of the dignity of mankind.

There’s a larger irony in all this. Even as the US demonstrates the openness of its own society, its unrivalled capacity for self-examination and self-correction, a free system based on the absolute authority of the rule of law, it is told it must submit itself to the views of Moscow, Beijing, and Brussels.

Fortunately, while the American system may be forgivingly tolerant of people with wild and dangerous ideas, it doesn’t generally let them run the country."

This is the great truth that the critics of America need to face up to.  America is a flawed superpower but what are the alternatives?  A United Nations that has failed Rwanda, Darfur and Burma and elevates human rights abusing nations to the head of its human rights council?  European Union member states that won't invest in defence?  Germany, France and other NATO countries which are not fulfilling commitments made to Afghanistan?  China - which puts its oil interests with Khartoum ahead of the people of Darfur?  Or Russia - which bullies its neighbours and indulges Iran at the Security Council?

Anti-Americanism will exist so long as the USA is the world's only effective policeman.  There'll always be people and nations who will hate authority figures and America's superpower status.  America needs to learn the lessons of recent years but it must not submit to multilateralism.   America is currently hated because it has combined interventionism with incompetence.  If it becomes beholden to multilateral institutions and agreements it will be enfeebled.  Such an America will probably be less hated but few will regard it highly.  It needs to be strong again.  A strong, effective America - working closely with other key democracies - may not be loved but it might become reasonably respected again.

Why America Doesn't Ratify Treaties

One of the leading sources of anti-Americanism relates to America's supposed arrogance in failing to sign or ratify international treaties that the rest of the world endorses.  This particular complaint arises from a failure to understand the role of treaties in the US Constitution and is not confined to the left.

In most countries, treaties are ratified by a vote of Parliament or by an executive decision.  They then supposedly have the force of law, but few countries have means of citizen enforcement of such law, which is why they can be safely ignored when convenient.  Thus, the western European nations are mostly quite happily failing to get anywhere near on target for their Kyoto Protocol commitments, with a couple of nations resting on the laurels of structural changes made before Kyoto was signed.  The only thing that citizens can do to get the nations to meet the targets is the imposition of political pressure, which is likely to dissipate once the true costs of meeting the targets reveal themselves.

The US Constitution, by contrast, has this to say on the subject of treaties:

Article II: [The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

There are therefore two main differences between the American system and the more usual Parliamentary system of dealing with treaties.  First, the President can only make Treaties with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.  That is why President Clinton signed Kyoto but did not ratify it, as the Senate voted preemptively 95-0 against consenting to any treaty that was agreed along Kyoto's lines.

Secondly, and more importantly, treaties trump national law, having the same status as the Constitution.  This means that activists can take the US Government to court and have national law quashed on the basis of a treaty commitment.  Judges can also instruct the Federal Government to take steps to meet treaty commitments.

That is why when a leading climate skeptic said at a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party Conference this year (I paraphrase), "If President Bush had had an ounce of sense, he would have ratified Kyoto and then done what Europe did and ignored it," he was completely wrong.  There is no way that Kyoto, once ratified, could be ignored.  Environmental activists could have judges take control of the US economy within months of ratification in order to enforce its provisions.

The current treaty up for debate is the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST.  Most of the rest of the world has ratified the treaty, but the US stood fast against it during Ronald Reagan's presidency.  Owing to claims that the treaty has now been "fixed," it is up for debate again.  LOST is opposed by national security interests such as the Center for Security Policy and by free-market groups such as my own Competitive Enterprise Institute.  Its ratification, these groups believe, will present a huge hostage to fortune.  In particular, provisions relating to environmental impacts on the oceans are an open invitation for environmental groups to sue to the detriment of the United States as a whole.

It is sad that the United States gets blamed for failing to play along with the rest of the world on such treaties.  The main reason why it does not is because, as in Kyoto's case, other nations don't play by the rules of the game, whereas the US is forced to.  If we are to free the world from the curse of meaningless platitudes masquerading as international agreements, the US model for dealing with treaties should be held up as the example, to follow, not a reason for criticism.

--Iain Murray

Clinton and Kyoto

It always amazes me when I see President Clinton complaining about President Bush's "withdrawal" from Kyoto.  The fact is that the legal situation remains exactly the same under Bush as it did under Clinton.  In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying any treaty negotiated at Kyoto that (1) did not also set emissions limits on developing countries; and (2) that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”  Yet when the Kyoto negotiations faltered, Al Gore as leader of the American delegation agreed to a treaty that did exactly that.  President Clinton therefore declined to send the Treaty to the Senate for ratification in the sure knowledge that it would be defeated heavily, damaging the reputation of both him and his Vice-President.  President Bush has merely continued that Clintonian policy, in recognition of the Senate's stated position. 

As it happens, there is no legal or Constitutional provision forbidding the Senate from debating whether or not to ratify a signed treaty, merely a procedural nicety that the President should transmit it to the Senate (and if the situation is so grave, one would expect the Senate to ignore niceties).  Yet the political reality is that the Senate would likely continue to adhere to the principles behind that 1997 resolution, even if not unanimously this time.

So, President Clinton is blaming President Bush for contributing to anti-Americanism for continuing his own policy!  The brass neck involved in that claim is quite astonishing.  Now, insofar as stating inaccurately that Bush has withdrawn from Kyoto in itself contributes to anti-Americanism, in that it blames the current President uniquely for something unpopular in the world that is not his unique responsibility, it might just be possible that President Clinton is stirring up anti-Americanism for his own partisan political ends.  And if there was ever something that could be called reprehensible, that is it.

-- Iain Murray

Merkel-Sarkozy take pro-American positions despite hostility of their populations

The cover of the latest edition of Newsweek overstates the improvement in US-European relations.  We are not seeing 'The End of Anti-Americanism'.  We are, however, seeing very anti-American political leaders like Chirac and Schroeder replaced with much more friendly leaders like Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel.  Unfortunately the anti-Americanism of European populations has only moderated slightly from when it mushroomed - at the time of the Iraq war.  This, of course, makes the leaders' willingness to improve relations with America even more noteworthy.

Sarkozy is most remarkable.  Holidaying in America last month - unthinkable for his predecessor - he said that "the friendship between the United States and France is as important today as it has been during the two previous centuries."  He called America "the greatest democracy in the world".  Sarkozy has attacked Russian "brutality" and warned that bombing of Iran could be the only way of preventing Tehran from becoming a nuclear power.

Newsweek's Stryker Mcguire offers some explanations for the shift in mood of leaders across the European continent:

1. Iraq is no longer such a sore point.  Donald Rumsfeld, who inflamed European opinion, has moved on.  Condoleezza Rice has worked hard to build bridges with European leaders.  She travelled 128,000km in and around Europe in 2007.
2. Across Europe - particularly in Central and Eastern Europe - there is a yearning for American protection in response to an increasingly aggressive Russia.
3. There is an understanding that leading global challenges - such as trade, Darfur and climate change - cannot be addressed without Washington's engagement.
4. Counter-terrorism operations are driving even the most sceptical leaders to work more closely with America.  There is increasing co-operation, for example, between Spain's Zapatero and America.

Both sides of the Atlantic are giving and taking in this new, warmer period.  America is behaving more multilaterally.  European nations are allowing America to access the locations it needs to progress missile defence.

Although Brown features on the front cover, Maguire is careful to note that Brown is less pro-American that Blair.  Earlier this week we noted that Brown and Bush hadn't spoken for five weeks and Washington Republicans are very uneasy about Britain's tactics in Basra.

This website will be readier to welcome the Sarkozy-Merkel warmth to America when it's followed up with sacrificial action.  The weak commitment of both France and Germany to operations in Afghanistan is a reminder that the Anglosphere nations are still shouldering a disproportionate share of Europe's defence.

And to those Europeans waiting for a Democrat President to fundamentally change things - they should be prepared for possible disappointment.  If a Democrat succeeds President Bush there may be (for the reasons discussed here) nasty shocks on trade and isolationism.

Bush-hatred sinks to new low

Artist Jonathan Yeo, son of Conservative MP Tim Yeo, has produced a portrait of George W Bush that is made up of images from pornographic magazines.  Mr Yeo, an opponent of the Iraq war, told Britain's Sun newspaper that he produced his 'porn-trait' for fun and not to offend.  "I'm pleased with it," he said.  He went further to Ben Brogan who broke the story on his blog yesterday:

"Bush is someone who doesn't seem to react to criticism on any kind of intellectual or philosophical level so you find yourself resorting to schoolboy humour to get his attention.  This is not about the Iraq war or about his policies. This is just about him. It's supposed to be amusing rather than offensive, to make people smile rather than change their political views."

Juvenile Bush-hatred is hardly new to Britain.  The fact that the BBC posted a picture of Bush as Hitler on its newsroom wall was highlighted in a BritainAndAmerica video.

Maurice Saatchi urges America to rediscover its practical idealism

Lord Saatchi, former Chairman of Britain's Conservative Party and executive director of the M&C Saatchi advertising agency, has written for today's Financial Times about anti-Americanism and how it might be addressed.  The FT article is itself a summary of a paper that he has written for Sheila Lawlor's Politeia think tank.

Lord Saatchi, speaking in London's Carlton Club in front of a painting of Margaret Thatcher, lists some of the common criticisms of America:

• It is too much in love with money – worshipping the god of the marketplace, the golden calf.
• It has too much money, seven of the top 10 banks, eight of the top 10 companies etc.
• It is too stingy, giving away less of its wealth than other countries.
• It is vulgar, a rich barbarian.
• It has a lowly culture yet practises cultural imperialism.
• It is arrogant and condescending to “the little monkeys” from other cultures.
• It is too religious, saying “God bless America” once too often.
• It has too much power, spending more on arms than the rest of the world put together.
• It is a hypocrite, disguising its wars of self-interest as humanitarian interventions and exporting democracy at the point of a bayonet.
• It is inconsistent – agitating for “regime change” with some “un-democratic” countries, but with others giving arms, aid and trade.
• It has an incoherent foreign policy – it abandoned the “no first strike” principle which kept the peace for decades; “pre-emption” replaced “deterrence” but has no basis in international law.
• It is too close to Israel.
• It resists multilateral solutions, preferring unilateralism, hegemony, a sheriff strategy – In Guns We Trust.

Many examples of anti-Americanism are contradictory, of course.   Some hate America for its Hollywood-led decadence - others for the traditional morality of the religious right.  Some think America is too interventionist - others want it to be much more involved in policing the world.

Lord Saatchi notes that isolationism was theoretically possible in pre-globalisation America but that is not a credible option anymore.  Lord Saatchi's solution to anti-Americanism is a restoration of its practical idealism:

"True Americanism is practical idealism. Its aims, instead of being materialistic and mechanical, are idealistic to the point of being Utopian. In this way, the US can provide and express ideals that strike a chord in humans everywhere – a declaration of independence on behalf of all the peoples of the world.  To disarm its enemies and defeat its rivals, America only has to focus its intellectual energy and its vast econ omic resources on the policies that would help the world follow its lead, to rediscover the language to project its founding ideology beyond its own shores and to remind the world of its ultimate belief – in self-determination, individuality, independence – and in democracy only as a means to that great end."

THE FULL FT ARTICLE IS HERE.