The Trouble With “Pro-American”
Something I’ve been thinking about over the past few days is the tick in American discourse of labeling foreign leaders “pro-American” or “anti-American” as if America is likely to be the primary thing on their mind. But obviously when you’re talking about actors on the other side of the world they’re probably mostly worried about other stuff. People in Pakistan are thinking about India. Indians are thinking about Pakistan and China. Not that they don’t have opinions about the United States, but these kind of considerations are secondary to the main point.
But because the United States, though not the obsessive focus of every single foreigner everywhere on the planet, really is the most important single country in the world, it becomes important for us to be wary of manipulation. You see a remarkable amount of credulity about the need to back “pro-American” leaders from Ahmed Chalabi to Mikheil Saakashvili to Pervez Musharraf and whomever else when in fact none of these people (as Chalabi and Musharraf have managed to make crystal clear over the years with certain betrayals) are, in fact, monomaniacally focused on advancing American interests. That’s not to say there’s anything wrong with the fact that Musharraf cares more about his own interests and those of Pakistan than he does about the United States; that’s just the way it is and these things need to be seen for what they are. Saakashvili didn’t send Georgian troops to Iraq, for example, out of deep-seated pro-American convictions — he did it in exchange for actual and hoped for assistance in achieving his main goals vis-a-vis Russia and Georgia’s breakaway regions. And that’s the stuff of which diplomacy and international relations is made, which is fine. But that means it behooves us to make sure that these kind of relationships are actually beneficial to the United States rather than thinking that there’s a certain timeless “pro-American” class of individuals to whom we must deliver infinite support.
Conversely, it’s wrong to look at every situation around the world where some country’s perception of its interests goes against what the United States wants to see happen and then label that behavior as “anti-American.” Countries are going to do things we don’t like, in which case it will often be appropriate for us to push-back. But absent actual evidence that the thing we don’t like is genuinely being undertaken with specific anti-American intent there’s no reason to pathologize behavior as driven by an anti-American agenda. Sometimes stuff just happens, WTF
37 Responses to “The Trouble With “Pro-American””
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am
There are a lot of idiotic things about the current situation, but I also think it’s insane for a world power to base foreign policy on friendships with leaders in unstable parts of the world.
Putin and Bush were friendly–look what that got the USA.
“Scheunemann said McCain and Saakashvili are friends who have speaking daily throughout the crisis.” From CNN.
Be friendly with leaders when you can, but don’t be “friends.” Foreign policy isn’t a play date.
Yet more evidence that McCain is ruled by emotions waaaay to much to trust in anything important.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
“Pro-American” is used to describe foreign leaders who seem to want what the hawkish U.S. foreign policy establishment wants and are reflexively willing to pursue that hawkish establishment’s desires.
Similarly, the hawkish U.S. foreign policy establishment regards itself as the arbiter of what “American” is and what “Americans” want and what “American” interests are, no matter how freakishly wrong, unpopular, or isolated their perceptions and goals may be.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:17 am
That was the problem with our reaction to France in 2003.
French government was actually arguing that warning us against going to Iraq was the most PRO-AMERICAN stance they could take because they knew it was going to a catastrophe for everyone – us included.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Actually, there are a few countries which genuinely are “pro-American.” Australia and New Zealand immediately come to mind. You can generally presume that they would react to events much as we would in the same situation.
Obviously neither Georgia nor Pakistan fit this bill.
And, frankly, the flip side of Matt’s argument is that there are few governments which are fundamentally anti-American either. Their cultures, mores, goals, and interests may differ from or even contravene ours; but it does not follow that getting us is at the top of their agenda.
Which means that even if Russia actually does have some aggressive desire to gobble up Georgia, Estonia, or what not; we must ask the basic question – so what? It is many miles from Tbilisi to Hackensack – and let me speak plainly – anyone whose top priority is not energy independence – even at the expense of military deployment – has no serious interest in national security anyway.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Realists believe that the major forces at work in the realm of international politics are the world powers pursuing their national interests. At present, the US is so far ahead of all other nations in advancing its interests that alliance with or opposition to the actions of the US can tell one a lot about how a nation will behave on the international stage.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I agree with Matthew in general. The term “pro-American” makes more sense within the internal context of a specific country when we are talking about choices of leaders. There are many instances around the world face a choice between two or more leaders, one of whom may be more sympathetic to US interests and one who many not be. Or, more accurately, one candidate may be more sympathetic to US business interests and the other less so.
Venezuela, Mexico, and Bolivia, for example, have had elections between a left-wing nationalist candidates and conservative candidates thought to be more sympathetic to US business interests.
To make Matthew’s point, it’s probably ridiculous to talk generally about Colombia being more pro-American than Venezuela. However it is accurate to suggest that the current president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, is more sympathetic to US strategic and business interests than Hugo Chavez.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:29 am
To cut to the chase, this is the language of tribalism. The party that outgrows such tribalism is the one that will place the US back on the stage of world leadership.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Actually, this situation has matured considerably during our long period of post-war dominance.
Maybe the best model for studying this is the case of Caesar and the tribes of Gaul. A loser in Gaulish power politics appealed to Caesar to intervene on his side; Caesar, in order to burnish his power and prestige in Rome, found himself “forced” to intervene to protect the legitimacy of contracts, free trade, the rights of man etc etc.
Naturally, all of the local despots, once they’ve suckled at the tit of American militarism and the CIA, do whatever they can to get us more involved on their side. Madame Chiang and the Soong family looted China, sending the gold and art abroad, in preparation for their own getaway, while using the Luces and every trick they knew to get us more involved in propping them up. We ended up supporting the Chinese in Formosa as a vicious dictatorship over the Formosans for 30 years- and supporting the Formosa-as-province-of-China model.
Now the Formosans, in their turn, appeal to us to protect them from the Chinese, and American politicians eager to score points in our domestic politics offer them that support.
Understanding the dynamics of these situations is probably the single most important study of any time, in history or the present, when a complex and trading society of substantial size interacts with commercial hinterlands and rival powers.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:39 am
It should also be added each and every time that often what the super-ultra-wise people in the hawkish establishment demand that foreign governments do in “America’s” interest actually ends up hurting me, my interests, and any of what “America” really needs.
I know it will go on, but it really gets old watching harmful crap — which will likely end up either forcing me and people like me to either lose out on possible advancements or experience greater risks and harm — being perpetually labeled as “pro-American” by a crew of nimrods, liars, and sycophants.
The use of the term is simply a hammer to bash away any dissent as, of course, “un-American”.
If I disagree with my government’s leaders or its pundit worshipers, I am not “anti-American”. Similarly, if some leader or party or people in another nation disagree with my government’s leaders or its pundit worshipers, that does not make them “anti-American”.
Likewise, a bunch of hard right wing fools who reflexively back any martial madness with regard to Israel are allowed to define themselves and only themselves as “pro-Israel”, while huge portions of the Israeli population itself and certainly much of the rest of the world backing policies which actually could improve the lives of actual Israelis themselves are dismissed as “anti-Israel”.
The same goes for economics & trade rhetoric. If the pro-investor elites all back some policy, it is by definition “pro-growth” and “pro-worker” no matter how many actual working people would be harmed by some policy or deal, and likewise anyone dissenting from that elite coalition are “anti-business” and “anti-trade” and “anti-worker”, etc. etc.
This game is an old one, and if you don’t believe it, just go troll the decades’ long archives at Time magazine to notice it’s not just some recent or even post-Reagan development.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
The whole framing is depressingly slanted in that it presupposes that every US citizen is aligned with, supports and profits from the large-scale pursuit of US strategic and economic interests and that by extension this is supposed to apply to every citizen of every nation.
Firstly this is factually wrong, since except for the rare case of a people’s way of life being threatened by war, occupation or oppression, most people simply aren’t all that affected by their nation’s status in the world or its ability to pursue ‘national interests’ and despite the rhetoric most people don’t care about such things all that much – they really care much more about their family, their jobs, their social standing within such a society.
Secondly, an approach towards IR based on ‘national interest’ is morally wrong and will hopefully give way to some form of enlightened cosmopolitanism in the long run – well, one can always hope, no?
August 16th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Perhaps I’m naive but I see things in terms of democracy and sovereignty. It’s a good thing Musharraf is resigning. I’d take Georgia over Belarus. In the long run, Iraq will probably line up with Brazil, India, and China, etc. although Iraq will look to the US to help prevent them from being dominated by Iran. The Cold War way of looking at things no longer holds.
August 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
It’s a bit more complex than that, Matthew.
Leaders can and do develop personal alliances with other leaders that can guide how they view the other country. And, yes, countries can ally (or oppose each other) for reasons that go beyond naked self-interest. The Cold War wasn’t just wrestling over who owns Eastern Europe; there really was an ideological conflict at the center of it.
(Realism sounds good, but there’s a reason why IR academics have been asking, wondering, why there are no realists left among them. It doesn’t have the greatest predictive accuracy.)
As for “anti-Americanism”, I agree with those above who say that the problem is the people making the charge in the first place. Sure, a leader can be anti-American in that he actively dislikes or loathes Americans and what they stand for. The public opinion of a people can be like that too.
But are we really going to have neoconservatives figure out when this is happening?
August 16th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I think it’s important to keep in mind the notion that “pro-” or “anti-American” can mean a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts. I think you’re absolutely right that for many countries, “America”, as in “America’s foreign policy positions” specifically isn’t priority #1 (though America projects enough military, economic, and cultural influence that it’s rarely priority #72).
Frequently, however, people use “pro-” or “anti-” American to describe a stance toward the culture of the West, or the liberal (political) market (economic), empirical (scientific) project, or toward globalization. Obviously, these are all interrelated, and are all wrapped up with “America”, and taken together, this is something that all countries have particularly strong feelings about.
France’s “Anti-Americanism” primarily centers around their attitudes toward economic liberalism and globalization, whereas China’s “Anti-Americanism” mostly centers around opposition to normative political liberalism and as a specific opposition to American military influence in Southeast Asia.
“America” just means so many things in so many places that almost every people and country will be “pro-” and “anti-” American in strong ways (and in sometimes contradictory ways), but what that means must be highly contextualized.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I’d apply Matt’s thinking here to the domestic scene as well. Americans should not have to be patriotic per se, celebrating America qua America. For one thing, it’s rather to diverse a thing to celebrate in its entirety, unless one becomes dangerously reductive about what constitutes the essence of America. This essence, judging from the media, usually involves some type of unhistorical chest-thumping about our position vis-a-vis other countries (see Fred Thompson’s recounting of WWII), and claims that America is like super-unique in world history from people who seemingly know nothing of world history.
Now, of course I’m very happy to live in a country in which some things–such as my ability to write this–are taken for granted. I’m rather pleased with the Bill of Rights, and enjoy American history and considerable elements of American heritage. But I don’t consider it my responsibility, nor do I have the impulse, to actively celebrate these things in a manner seemingly designed to make sure everyone knows, damn, I love America! Indeed, one of the things I increasingly value about the American way is federalism, which is designed to corrode attachments to a corporation as big and monolithic as the American Federal Government. I’m less free if I’m constantly caring about belonging to a group of 300,000,000 people, and so I’ll enjoy, rather than brag about, my right to not surrender my individuality to a group identity.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Personally, in an effort to confuse our enemies, I think we should shift our support to countries which are pro-Belgian.
Anyway, of course this is basically a relic of the Cold War. Even then in truth it was a more complex picture, but at least there was some sense in broadly categorizing governments as allied with the United States, allied with the Soviet Union, or consciously neutral. Now, though, there are just a host of different relationships countries have with the United States, and no necessary relationship among countries with a similar relationship with the United States.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Like, WTF man, WTF?
August 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
It always makes me chuckle when us Americans complain that the OPEC countries aren’t doing producing more oil. Yet if some foreign countries made a suggestion what we should be doing on an issue, we get all huffy-puffy about it.
As a lawyer, I have been following the issue of how acceptable is it for international law to influence American law. Justice Kennedy was condemned for saying that international standards did not allow juveniles to be executed.
It seems to me that if we hope to influence the international community with our laws then we should allow ourselves to be influenced by their laws. We can call this the “free market of ideas.” Let the best laws and rules win.
By criticizing Justice Kennedy for acknowledging laws other than our own, conservatives are showing a lack of faith in our laws being acceptable to people around the world.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I’d be happy enough if our government would be willing to be influenced by our own laws.
August 16th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Oh, pooh to all of you. Far too serious. Looks like I’m going to be the only one to have a little fun here.
Excuse me, I’m going to go jump on the bed. Whee!
August 16th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
This post is good old fashioned realism. One of the implications of these claims it seems to me is that the U.S. should not be as keen to support Israel when many of the latter’s policies may not serve – and even hurt – U.S. strategic objectives in the region. Do you agree?
August 16th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
El Cid: “This game is an old one,”
About ten thousand years, and probably longer, except we don’t have all the history of it before writing was invented.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Ugh! Me think white haired old man from next village not pro-ur Village Behind Red Hill! We need ally with Pro-Village-Behind-Red-Hill policies! We must have friend fight Axis Of Mammoth Bone!
August 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“Pro-American” often just means that a foreign leader is part of a certain hawk’s or pseudo-intellectual’s social circle. Look at all of the pieces that came out about Benazir Bhutto from her friends at Harvard and Oxford after she died. Just because someone told you what foods go well with a 2004 Chablis doesn’t mean they are pro-American.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Doh!
March 1st, 2009 at 9:46 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 8:39 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 13th, 2009 at 4:51 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:36 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra