Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=04/05/2003

TYPE=ON THE LINE

NUMBER=1-01306

TITLE=ANTI-AMERICAN TIDE?

INTERNET=Yes

EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY 619-0038

CONTENT=

THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE

Host: Anti-war or anti-American? Next, On the Line.

[music]

Host: A U-S-led coalition is fighting to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. But in cities around the world, protestors have taken to the streets in opposition to the war in Iraq. Thousands marched on the U-S embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, shouting anti-American slogans and waving anti-American signs. In Bangladesh, protestors charged police barricades, attacked an effigy of President Bush and praised Saddam Hussein. There have been large anti-war demonstrations in South Korea, in China, and in European capitals. How serious is the tide of anti-Americanism? I'll ask my guests: Husain Haqqani, visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Michael Barone, senior writer for U-S News and World Report magazine and Joshua Muravchik, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Welcome and thank you for joining us today.

Host: Husain Haqqani, how wide-spread is anti-Americanism and how deep does that sentiment go?

Haqqani: An Indian author has written a book called "Yankee Go Home, But Take Me With You." A lot of people are anti-American but at the same time admire and appreciate a lot that America has to offer. So I think that there are several layers. And at a political level, I think anti-Americanism is at an all-time high right now and certainly in the Islamic world, where we see that since [the terrorist attacks of] 9/11, United States' stock has fallen considerably in public view.

Host: Michael Barone, is anti-Americanism primarily a political phenomenon?

Barone: Well, I think it's a political phenomenon. I think there are some people that have apprehensions about the extent of American military power and also our economic power. I think some of it is activated by a four letter word: Envy. The fact is America has been able to accomplish things that the Arabic world has not been able to accomplish despite its historic efforts at producing a high civilization. It hasn't done very well lately. And so I think people are acting out of frustration, they're acting out of apprehension and they're acting in some cases because it's an irrational feeling, I think.

Host: Now, when you say apprehension, what do you mean by apprehension?

Barone: Well, people are saying if the United States is going to replace the government of Iraq, they'll go all around the world replacing any government it takes a momentary dislike to. I think when you think about that, and the difficulties and the length of time that it has taken us to take military action against Iraq, the major effort that is needed, it's pretty obvious that the United States is not going to be going around overthrowing one government every month. This is a long-range outfit and it is a particularly vicious and evil government producing weapons of mass destruction in connivance with terrorists who would take them and use them in this country to destroy hundreds of thousands or millions of people if they could.

Host: Joshua Muravchik, is this anti-Americanism a product of apprehension? Is there really a sense that people think the U-S is about to go and try to do in other countries what's going on in Iraq?

Muravchik: Well, it's a combination of a number of things. There is an apprehension, I do think so, because throughout most of history we've had some kind of balance of power on the international stage, both globally and regionally, and today there is no balance of power. There's no conceivable grouping of states that could stand up against America. There's such a uni-polarity in the distribution of military force and I'm sure that that makes others anxious. I don't think it fills them with the deepest fear, because I think there is a pretty widespread knowledge that America is not an imperialist country. We don't see many other countries raising their own defense budget to really try to fight off America the way they would do if they were desperately frightened of us. But still I think there is a pervasive anxiety and also I think -- Michael referred to envy -- you know it's not just that our military power's so great, but it seems as if the distribution of blessings is so unfair. That America has this great military power, and it's also the richest country in the world. It's also the most politically influential. Its popular culture, for better or worse, is universalized. And I think it just seems downright unfair to people that one country should have all these advantages. I know: now I'm a big sports fan, and whenever I watch a game, which is very often, I always root for the underdog. That's axiomatic. I think it's a normal human impulse. And America is sort of the "overdog" these days in all respects, and people are bound to feel a certain envy, hostility or just wanting to see the big guy brought down.

Haqqani: It's not just about the big guy being brought down. Sometimes, of course, Americans do give out the impression of being arrogant. For example, when the U-S turns around and says: "Make your choices, either you are with us or against us." Or whenever the Secretary of Defense comes on air and says: "We are absolutely certain the regime of Saddam Hussein is not going to be there a few days later." It comes across as somebody who is all-powerful, willing to use that power, and makes people fear. Now the problem, of course, is when you're talking about anti-Americanism*, you're talking about a different emotion. You're talking about love as opposed to hate. Whereas what the U-S has accomplished all over the world is envy and fear and it has not been able to create the love that it could have. If the U-S message to the world was: "We are powerful because of certain ideas. We are powerful because we adopted the Declaration of Independence, because we have a constitution that focuses on individual liberty." What has happened in the last few years in particular since the uni-polar moment arrived, that the U-S has spoken to the rest of the world in power terms rather than in idea terms.

Host: Michael Barone?

Barone: I take dispute with that. I think we've talked on occasion in power terms. I think we've also talked in ideals. I don't know that that has been noticed by many people across the world, but when President Bush gave his State of the Union message, his first one in January 2002, he talked about the seven non-negotiable demands of human liberty. And he said that they apply to all peoples. They're not just a product of the United States. They're given by the creator, they're endowed by nature. And they're something that everybody's entitled to and I do think that the United States has a good record over the last one hundred years of spreading representative democracy, spreading free-market economics with welfare state protections, spreading the idea of trade across the world, freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, freedom of religion. Many places in the world have governments that observe these principles, many more today than was true a hundred years ago. In most of those cases, the United States played a role, sometimes a major role, sometimes a minor role, in giving people the seven non-negotiable demands of human liberty. The anti-American crowds don't want to take that into account. They shield themselves from evidence that this is so. In some cases they live in a fantasy world that bears very little relationship to reality and that's aided and abetted by some of the dictatorial regimes in different countries. But I do think that the United States here has a record of spreading good ideas and it's a record -- as Husain was saying earlier, correctly, a lot of people come over here. About half of all the immigrants of the world who cross national boundaries and choose to live someplace else choose the United States. We're only four percent of the world's population, but we get half the world's immigrants.

Muravchik: At the risk of piling on, let me also take exception to one thing you said Husain, which is, when you said arrogance.

Haqqani: It comes across as arrogance. I didn't say it was necessarily. I'm not pronouncing my own judgement, all I'm saying is trying to understand the phenomenon and saying people think it is arrogance.

Muravchik: Well, and there may be some arrogance. But I would insist that the impression of arrogance may flow less from how we conduct ourselves and what we say than from the fact that we are so powerful. And I suggest by way of thinking of a comparison, with France. Now, two months ago, the President of France, Monsieur [Jacques] Chirac said that the other European nations "ought to shut up" and not express their views about the war in Iraq. They ought to defer to France. No American leader has ever said anything like that, would ever say anything like that, but we don't hear a big outcry around the world about French arrogance.

Barone: Oh, but we did hear it in some of the countries that he was addressing, in Eastern and Southern Europe.

Muravchik: Yes, I mean, not so much about arrogance. They sort of punched back. They weren't intimidated.

Haqqani: But isn't that partly because France is only a European power, so the reaction to his statement was only in Europe? Both positive and negative comments. The United States is a global power and because of the uni-polar moment, even in Micronesia or Mongolia, what the U-S thinks or says matters. And so therefore, every feeling, whether it's anti or pro-American gets magnified and gets reported globally. One other thing that I would say is that while I generally agree with your assertions about America's contribution to civilization as a whole, there have been moments that are not necessarily the proudest moments.

Barone: That's right.

Haqqani: And those moments have left a bad taste. So, for example, in the Middle East, just as the United States is associated on the one hand with the ideas of liberty and freedom and democracy and free market, the U-S is also associated with supporting the Shah of Iran and certain other Middle Eastern regimes which are not necessarily the best. And of course, one hopes that President Bush's Wilsonian sort of outlook will now spread beyond Iraq as well. But, the critics and the anti-American crowd, as you describe them rightly, they pounce on those little details and say: "Hey, these guys are not serious about it. Their rules do not apply universally." And that's what promotes anti-Americanism. I'm not saying it's right. I'm explaining why [it happens].

Barone: I think that's a correct analysis. You know, has this country's record been perfect in promoting democracy, no.

Haqqani: No country's can be, by the way.

Barone: Give the exigencies of the Cold War. Give us situations where we chose to support a regime that one could characterize as the lesser evil, yes, on occasions. And, you know, in World War Two we allied ourselves with the Soviet Union in order to defeat Hitler's Germany. So we were associating with an evil power at that time. So the record is not perfect. But on the whole I think it's a powerful record in favor of human freedom and decency. And I would bring forward just one more point. President Bush's speech last June 24th about freedom, about the Middle East, where he specifically changed American policy and said that we were going to back democracy in the Palestinian state and we had to have democracy and freedom in a Palestinian state. Prior to that, American presidents of both parties had adopted the "lesser evil" policy of saying, well, Yasser Arafat may be a thug, he may be a dictator, he may be corrupt, he may be a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism, but we're going to use him as an interlocutor, as the lesser evil. Well, that policy has changed now. And I don't expect people in the Arabic world will immediately appreciate this, but our policy is for democracy for people in the Arab world. Our policy is for governments that will observe the rule of law, respect people's rights, give people a chance to take part in a representative government. That is what we want for them.

Host: Josh Muravchik, let me bounce off this dialogue here about there being a complaint that the U-S has in the past supported, particularly in the Arab world, dictatorial regimes. And yet, in Iraq, here you have the U-S going after a dictatorial regime, but it's not being met with praise in the Arab world. How does the U-S deal with that contradiction.

Muravchik: Well, I think that the United States has erred in the past in accepting that the status quo of the Arab countries which -- virtually all of them are dictatorial countries or monarchies -- was something perpetual or eternal, that we ought to adapt to rather than applying our principles of democracy there to. One of the funniest things I've ever read in a government document was how the early human rights reports tried to dance around

Host: The State Department human rights reports.

Muravchik: The State Department human rights reports, tried to tiptoe around the fact when they were referring to Saudi Arabia or the draconian punishments in the name of Sharia, of cutting off hands of thieves and things like that. And what the State Department chose to say about it was "Saudis have a very finely drawn sense of justice." That's a direct quote. So, we do have this, I think, quite misconceived history of accepting the status quo. I think that President Bush, as Michael was saying, made a big breakthrough on this, not just vis-à-vis the Palestinians, but in his national security documents saying we need to try to spread democracy throughout that region, that a big part of the so-called "root cause" of terrorism is that it's a region that has only known a tyranny. And in which the internal politics of these countries essentially are conducted in the language of violence rather than in the language of voting and discourse. And therefore, it's not so surprising that when people from these countries turn to the outside world, they also act in a violent way. So, I think there is an important case to be made against what we've done in the past. My last point -- I know I'm going on - I'm not sure however, that that is the reason for so much of the anti-Americanism because when I see some of these anti-American groups, starting with al-Qaida and some of these anti-American demonstrators, it doesn't strike me that these people necessarily are all democrats or what they're demanding or fighting for is democracy.

Haqqani: Many of them are fascists. They have an ideological commitment to opposing the United States as well as whatever good the United States should present. So, those groups we can keep aside. I think what we can talk about is, there will have to be a stratification, when we'll have to identify those who are ideologically opposed. I think that is a minority all over the world, in a small group, for example, the radical Islam fringes, we talk about it. There are one billion Muslims. If one percent of them are radical, that's still a very large number. That's ten-million. But, as a percentage, it's only one percent. I think the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world want to embrace American freedom, want to embrace the concept of democracy and free markets. And I think to the extent that the U-S government is able to deliver on its new promise of bringing that to that part of the world, the U-S will eventually start winning hearts and minds. But there will be a difficult phase in which people will say: "Should we trust them? Shouldn't we?" They did support the Shah. They did support the tyrannies in our region. And so, it's only a matter of time.

Barone: Although, if you ask the people of Iran today whether they would vote to have the Shah's regime back instead of the Mullahs that are ruling it now, my guess suggests to me by people who are more informed about Iran than I am, is that they'd vote for having the Shah back.

Haqqani: But isn't that the case everywhere? People want, you know, somebody else when they have a difficult guy. Ideally the Iranians would want a liberal democracy, I think. That's what they want.

Barone: Yes. Remember some of this anti-Americanism is fed by supporters of these authoritarian and totalitarian regimes and by their people. They by themselves -- if we have more democracy in the world, we're going to get fewer of these regimes, because consider what Iraq has done. Consider what the North Korean regime has done. They have spent huge amounts of money on weapons of mass destruction and military power. They have literally starved some of their citizens. No democratically elected government can get away with starving its own citizens. If the citizens have a vote, they're going to get rid of a government like that. No democratic government would likely allow these huge weapons and military programs vastly disproportionate to the size of the country, grotesquely so in the case of North Korea, would ever allow that kind of government, that kind of military effort to go on.

Haqqani: And it suits the dictators to tell their people: "Hey you are starving. You are suffering and the root of that evil is something called America," instead of facing the fact that it's those regimes that are responsible. So, I understand and agree with what Mike's saying, that these regimes actually promote anti-Americanism as a substitute for the response and reaction of their own people for themselves. And so they feed hatred against America to avoid hatred against themselves.

Host: Josh Muravchik, one of the things that Husain Haqqani brings up is that the outcome in Iraq and whether the U-S does actually promote democracy may affect how people then view this action, may affect this anti-Americanism. How is the outcome in Iraq going to shape people's views of America?

Muravchik: I have no doubt that we're going to make a very big effort to implant a democratic system in Iraq. There is no guarantee that we will succeed, but the reason for hope is that, in fact, we have done it. And democracy has grown up by other means in a whole variety of places around the world in many third world countries where the conventional wisdom was at the time that democracy wasn't possible for cultural or economic reasons. So, I think we have a decent chance of success in Iraq. And I think the outburst of anti-Americanism that we're seeing now is not going to disappear overnight. But if we can get to a point where there is a representative government in Iraq -- I'm talking a couple of years down the line -- when the U-S occupation is ended and there is a representative government in Iraq, and if the Iraqis own chosen leaders themselves make clear that they feel a sense of gratification that they were freed from the long nightmare of Saddam Hussein's regime and that they have a happier life now, then I think there's a good chance that there will be a lot of reconsideration in people's minds around the world who now feel that we're terribly wrong in doing what we're doing.

Host: Michael Barone, we have about thirty seconds left. You've written that abstract arguments are not as strong in shaping public opinion as concrete facts.

Barone: Well, I think I would agree with what Josh has just said. We're watching the anti-American, mostly, broadcasting of al-Jazeera from Qatar, and they do give some time to the American point of view, but they tend to shape the news against it. If they're telling about a free and democratic Iraq in five years, if they're going around interviewing ordinary Iraqis and leaders of their government and they have the rule of law, they have commerce, that's going to get around the Arab world and you may see some minds changed.

Host: We're going to have go. That's all the time we have for today. I'd like to thank my guests: Husain Haqqani of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Michael Barone of U-S News and World Report magazine; and Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute. Before we go, I'd like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can e-mail them to Ontheline@ibb.gov

For On the Line, I'm Eric Felten.