The entrance to my apartment building in Stockholm has a bulletin board. On it you will find a memo about the drying cabinets in the laundry room, an ad from a locksmith, one from a real estate agent, and then it has a small poster depicting a world painted in the American flag, subtitled En annan världsbild är möjlig, “another conception of the world is possible” &mdash or, “another idea of how the world should be is possible.” It’s been there for at least a month, ever since I moved in.
I don’t disagree with the literal message on this posterNov 3,2003: Clarification: What I mean is, it is trivially true that other conceptions of the world are possible; it is a non-normative statement., which is one reason why I think it fails as a piece of propaganda art. What is clear is that the person who posted it holds assumptions that do not bear closer scrutiny. Something compels me to list them.
1. The world is currently like that: It is not. American ideas hold very little sway in most parts of the world (Sweden being an obvious exception).
2. A world like that is undesirable: It is not. Attaining American levels of corruption, crime, due process of law, freedom of speech and democracy would be a huge improvement in the quality of life of an overwhelming majority of the world’s population (Sweden again being an exception).
3. The American flag symbolizes American imperialism:Leave aside for a minute the absurd idea that the US is a cultural imperialist, forcing its films and fast food on unwilling victims. To indict the American flag — and the entirety of the American project it represents — on the grounds of Bush’s foreign policy is like condemning the Swedish way of life on account of a profitable arms industry, or its neutrality during World War IIWere the poster in question to date from 1944, with not a letter changed, it would have done an admirable job rallying support against Nazism.. It is not unlike condemning all of Islam on account of its more radical strains.
Perhaps I resist the use of the American flag in the context of this poster because I do not think of the US as a nation state, of the same mold as European countries. Bash the French flag, and you bash France. Bash the Italian flag, and you bash Italy. But reproach the American flag and you cannot help but lash out against a whole lot more.
This is because — unlike nation states — America is not founded on a myth of common provenance, but on a myth of common arrival. And while we can never choose our provenance, we should certainly be able to choose our destiny. Many millions of immigrants have done just that, becoming Americans by sheer force of will. Try that in Germany. Or Denmark. America is not so much a country as a state of mind; a subscription to a set of parameters within which an inclusive democratic society would be built.
Spreading this meme — painting the globe with the American flag, if you will — is a worthwhile cause, as far as I am concerned. Of course, I completely disagree with the neo-cons on how to go about it.
Which still leaves me with that poster on my doorstep every morning. The concept of a free-speech zone in every hallway holds great appeal to me; it’s a very American thing, really. It reminded me of this highly entertaining piece by Mike Adams, an American college professor who earlier this year documented his testing of the limits of tolerance of speech at his university. He turned his office door into a free speech zone, and allowed anyone to post anything on it, waiting to see who would be the first to fail the testIt was a feminist student who complained first; she objected to the sticker “So you’re a feminist?… Isn’t that cute”..
In that spirit, I’ve now made my own contribution to the bulletin board. On my way back from New York, I bought a 79c postcard of the Statue of Liberty and that poem by Emma Lazarus“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”. I put it up late last night. Oh, I know, it’s corny, and I feel guilty for stooping to the challenge like that, but I no longer feel like I implicitly agree with the poster’s sentiment every time I walk by it. And whoever put it there no longer assumes that I do.
so iraq was invaded by a “state of mind”, was it?
no, i think you have an overly romantic view of the US. like any other country, what america is is inextricable from what america does. what america does is determined by the current administration. in terms of policy “america” is inseparable from the current government, and it’s naive and dangerous to think otherwise. to take an extreme example, when nazi germany invaded poland it was still germany doing it. pretending that it wasn’t wasn’t going to make everything OK again.
america might normally be a guarantor of peace and international law, but now we know it can be unreliable. it has vast influence over the world but is not beholden to it; it has power without responsibility. previous administrations have recognised that preserving america’s power means pretending to place it under restraints like the UN, but that sort of sensitivity is anathema to the neo-cons. the lasting legacy of this administration may be concerted efforts on the part of everyone else to preserve a freedom of action outside america’s sphere of influence. i think even tony blair went along with bush in the misguided belief he could help “control” the US. setting up an EU military command outside the US-dominated NATO is probably only the start of a process by which the rest of the world weans itself off a dependency on the US.
so don’t sniff at “En annan världsbild är möjlig”; i think it’s something a lot of powerful people are taking seriously in Paris, Moscow, Beijing and Berlin.
Eurof’s comment is fair. The flag represents more than just Bush’s foreign policy, but at the same time it is our official banner, unlike, say, the Statue of Liberty or McDonald’s logo. Critics may fairly focus their anger on the flag.
I’m doubly troubled, however, by the rise of anti-Americanism. The first cause is of course US policy – as a superpower, we inevitably tread on toes, regardless of who’s at the helm. Moreover as the first nation ever founded on ideas and ideals, as embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it is inevitable that the US will fail to live up to these, thereby opening us to charges of hypocracy. (Given that few other nations have ideals in the first place, of course, is even sadder.) The Bush administration has certainly done a lot of damage, much of it unnecessary, to our international standing. It’s frustrating to be a citizen under this leadership.
But anti-Americanism has taken on a cast that goes beyond our policies, and this drives me nuts too. Stefan’s neighbor is, I think, making a statement that goes far beyond Bush’s foreign policy. It is a refutation of American values, and that is sad. Swedes take pride in their benign neutrality during the Cold War but I’m not that impressed by it; I think it stemmed more from geopolitical weakness, and a certain moral cowardice. The USSR was bad news, folks. The US did some pretty shitty things during the Cold War, there’s no way to justify or excuse things like deposing Allende or dreaming up the Tonkin Gulf incident. But on balance the US really did defend free society in the world. Maybe we’re irritating parochial assholes, but the world still loves rock’n’roll and Coke – and increasingly has the choice and the prosperity to afford them.
If Bush’s foreign policy amounts to ‘fuck you’, then I’d have to say the rest of the world’s main response hasn’t risen above ‘fuck you too’.
Stefan Geens: I agree with you to some extent.
However, you must make a difference betweeen the American Dream and the American Reality. The American Dream is all the positive things you listed above. The American Reality is what the country actually does, not the mythological image the Dream is embedded in.
Cute poster. Cretinous blog.
Look at your complaints: “1. The world is currently like that: It is not. American ideas hold very little sway in most parts of the world… 2. A world like that is undesirable: It is not. Attaining American levels of corruption, crime, due process of law, freedom of speech and democracy would be a huge improvement in the quality of life of an overwhelming majority of the world’s population…
3. The American flag symbolizes American imperialism”.
You have thereby suggested that: (1) what the poster is trying to convey is that US ideals shouldn’t be accepted worldwide, but are; (2) what the poster is trying to convey is that US levels of corruption, crime, due process of law, freedom of speech and democracy worldwide would be a bad thing; and/or that (3) what the poster is trying to convey is that the US is a global empire in the old fashioned occupational sense.
You then argue that the flag represents the “myth of common arrival” (all on the 4:15 from Paddington?), which is a good thing, and so the writing is wrong while the picture is good.
What are we left with? You say three random possible interpretations of the picture (all or none of which the poster designer may agree with) are interpretations you wouldn’t agree with, but one rather strange one that you pulled out of your arse is. Well, here’s another interpretation of the picture: the world exists in only two domensions and is largely made up of mints. And I can’t imagine conceiving the world in any other way.
I hope you didn’t retype what I wrote all by yourself but that you’ve discovered copy and paste. I was hoping for a more definite bodyslam, like an actual reason why the assumptions I attribute to the poster are unreasonable. If you can’t offer constructive criticism, at least offer destructive criticism, not a rewrite of my post in Charlese.
And I want my red t-shirt back.
It is interesting, Eurof, that you think “setting up an EU military command outside the US-dominated NATO is probably only the start of a process by which the rest of the world weans itself off a dependency on the US.” It is odd because it assumes (a) that Europe is a part of the world that is suffering under and needs liberation from some sort of oppressive American hegemony; (b) that a Europe with independent military capabilities will somehow act in the interest of other parts of the world that arguably actually do suffer from America’s power, when the last time Europe had independent military capabilities, it certainly did not work in the interest of any other part of the world and right now, lacking those capabilities, it does not seem very keen to act in the interests of non-Europeans (tariff barriers, etc.); and (c) that a Europe with independent military capabilities (which nobody is actually willing to pay for)would (1) ever be willing to use them “out of area” where they might actually be needed (not a popular proposition among Europeans even in the most deserving circumstances) or (2)be willing to sacrifice the lives of young men and women, even when it was critical to a greater good (again, never a popular notion among Europeans).
i agree with most of the points you make, except for a) — i don’t think europe is suffering under american hegemony; thank god it’s one of the few places able to stand up to them in a friendly way. on b) i think it’s rare that anyone acts wholly selflessly in the interests of other people when they use military power and don’t see why Europe should be any different. c1) i think they want to use them in bosnia; europe’s “in” areas and “out” areas tend to be fuzzier than most: e.g. israel sings in the eurovision song contest; does that mean palestine is “out of area”?. and c2) i agree they generally are extremely unwilling to sacrifice anyone, but you say that like it’s a bad thing, and you’re wrong if you think they don’t bang on about the greater good all the time — look at those preachy swedes.
but i don’t see why any of these things being true or not invalidates the point that people in Europe are a bit worried about being bossed around by a global hegemon they didn’t vote for and which appears to care not a jot about them or the things they care for. having control of your own military force gives you more independence. you don’t actually have to use it for it to be useful.
the americans by the way seem dead set against the whole idea of europe having a separate military command structure; methinks they’d much rather deal with a fragmented europe out of which they can pick “coalitions of the willing” than one speaking with a single voice — in french, say, or german.
I actually think that you are wrong about Americans being dead set against an independent European force. There are two sizable groups who would welcome it with open arms: first, the people who don’t want to sacrifice one american life for the shared protection of European security embrace the idea of a Euro force, because they think (wrongly) it would let us “bring the boys home” and “all of those foreigners would take care of their own problems.” Second, there are those who think that sharing the burden of pursuing shared aims (yes you can wonder about who gets to frame the aims) is a good idea. Greater european say in the world should only be recognized, they say, when there is greater European power and more European soldiers’ lives to back up that say. Last time Europe took a really independent position in jumping to recognize the Yugo-fragments, that same Europe was not prepared to lead in cleaning up the ensuing meltdown.
I also think that the question of European readiness to absorb real costs is not academic. For years, the french and others have talked about beefing up european capabilities, but at the same time, they have cut budgets, not just for big things like transport planes, but for small big-bang expenditures, like ensuring that spanish radios can talk to greek radios and everyone uses interoperable ammunition (local industries balk at standardization for fear of losing contracts).
The worst possible thing for Europe and for the cause of “multipolarity” (if you believe in that idea) would be for Europe to make a new set of pompous pronouncements re. common policy and making the Euro-voice heard and then fall flat on their faces when called upon to deliver.
Finally, if Europeans are worried about a “hegemon they didn’t vote for and which appears to care not a jot about them or the things they care for” then maybe they should aim all of these big guns they are going to buy at the DGs in Brussels (while of course sparing historically significant parts of the city). NB: the last point is in jest, as you know I don’t condone violence as a means of solving disputes)
Ben
Stefan– I’d say that the poster was probably trying to convey that the US as a global hegemon isn’t the only way for the world to be. Which interpretation isn’t any of the three and a half of your intepretations, which were (by the way)somewhat contradictory. Your post also involved constructions like the ‘myth of common arrival,’ which was trying so hard to be clever. I’m keeping your t-shirt until you admit the post was crap.
PS, Ben, Eurof –by having a half-way coherent discussion in the comments section under this blog, you’re only encouraging him. Please stop.
you make up for both of us, Charles, don’t worry
I wonder if the poster doesn’t have as much to do with geopolitics as it does with the preponderence of beachballs in sweden decoarated with the stars and stripes.
sorry charles, but i have a couple more points to make. anyway, we need to keep stefan writing pretentious crap so as to give us something to comment on. we discussed that already.
Ben: if you think the current admin. is happy with the French dominating a much stronger EU foreign policy with muscle, then. . . i have no words. as it is, rummy flew over to NATO to have a crisis meeting and a showdown a few weeks ago to tell everyone off for not respecting NATO enough — like err the US did after 9/11.
also you don’t give europe much room to do anything: the worst thing they can do is they’ll assert themselves — because they’ll cock it up and no-one will listen to them again? but if they don’t assert themselves no-one will isten to them anyway so they haven’t lost anything by trying, have they?
as for the readiness to absorb costs, well that’s circular too; that’s because they had a big old goals-sharing friend in the US they could always rely on to do the right thing in the world and who was happy to pay for a big military establishment. now they don’t have someone who shares the same goals, and that readiness to absorb costs might well improve.
as for the unelected hegemons of brussels, at least they’re europe’s unelected hegemons, who you can at least trust to be hegemonic largely in favour of europeans, even if it’s only the farmers. much better than a US administration with some very strange ideas about the rule of international law, who seem beholden only to the companies senior administration officials still have share options in — and no doubt cushy relationships just waiting around the corner if and when they lose their jobs.
“Eurof” likens the american invasion of iraq to
the nazi invasion of Poland. Others on this thread
though not as explicitly extreme are likewise
critical.
I’m wondering how Eurof and others reconcile
their beliefs with witnesses like this below:
fragments from http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=235
They returned to London earlier this month. The
minute they arrived at my flat, beaming and speaking
at a hundred words a minute, my fears evaporated.
Abtehale began: “We were so scared that we might
have been wrong. We kept thinking, `What if we
get there and everybody hates us for supporting
the war?’ But it was amazing: almost everyone we
met was more hawkish than us. All over the country,
even people who really hated the Americans agreed
it would have been a disaster if the war had been
called off.” Yasser said: “One of the first things
my uncle said to me was that his greatest fear in
the run-up to the war was that the Americans would
do what they did in 1991 and leave us to Saddam.”
[and]
Yasser says quietly: “The day after the liberation,
my aunt put out a black banner [an Arab mourning ritual]
with the names of all her relatives who had been
murdered by the regime on it. And she looked down
her street, and there were black banners on almost
every house. On some houses it looks like a long
shopping list. She said to her neighbour, `You too?’
Under Saddam it was a crime to mourn people killed
by the regime – it made you seem suspicious too.
Everyone was suffering terribly, but they were
suffering alone. They just didn’t know that everyone
else was hating it too.”
[and]
Tens of thousands of Iraqis are making a weekly
pilgrimage to Kadhimiya, where a human rights centre
has been set up to log on computer the names of all
the hundreds of thousands of people executed by the
regime. They have six million files to work through,
seized when the regime fell. They have processed
two hundred thousand so far. Abtehale went there
searching for her grandfather and uncle.
The Bushies think they can do what they like without “Europe” and merely pick a few friendlies like Blair and Aznar as it suits, and do a runner around Paris.
The French, Germans (and apparently Welsh, er, Eurof) think it better to build their own independent military capacity. I don’t see how this would be helpful, and it doesn’t really get around the idea of America cherry-picking anyway.
Wouldn’t it be better for all concerned if Europeans led by France said, “Hey, let’s make our military an indispensable part of Nato?” What if instead of going off to form a laugh of an army with Luxembourg, they tried to create vital military specializations? The British have something to bring to the table vis-a-vis the USA. The Europeans could if they tried. But instead they either go off on the ridiculous tangent of creating a new political pole, or don’t do very much of anything at all.
Make us need you, Europeans, and then you will have influence. Go your own way, and the Atlantic divide will only widen, a great and mutual loss.
mark, you are right, because saddam was obviously bad and poland wasn’t when germany invaded. BUT, i only meant to demolish stefan’s idea that the actions of a country under a particular leader are still the actions of that country, not to compare bush with hitler and the US with nazi germany which would be silly. we observe godwin’s law on this site, which states that as soon as someone compares his opponent’s stance with Nazi germany, discussion ends. it did not, therefore i must be telling the truth.
jame, unlike the british, i don’t think the french and other europeans judge their worth on how “useful” they appear to the US. i believe they’d prefer to think influence in the world is not predicated solely on influencing the US, as you imply it is. my point was that the world in the future is probably going to depend much less on the US’ good opinion, and that countries are going to try — if not to exclude the US, at least to remodel global institutions so that they’re less dependent on them.
i think europeans won’t worry too much about “widening the atlantic divide” if the only terms by which it can stay closed are by doing whatever the US says. i don’t think bush and cheney give a fuck about the atlantic divide anyway. if retaining influence in the world means creating another political pole i think europe will go ahead and do it.
Eurof:
I think you are wrong about Europeans not worrying about widening of the atlantic divide. Even France and Greece, perhaps the most aggressively petulent among our European allies recognize that blistering invective aside, our common interests will always outweigh our differences and we need to find a way to work together. Even when it is hard to do.
As for your comments on the current administration, there is a lot of evidence to support your read. All I can tell you is that there are many very powerful people in and around American government who recognize and value the transatlantic bond. I understand that Europeans are used to being able to openly and savagely attack American policy at the highest levels and get no strong response from the highest levels in Washington, but I guess it is a different day in that regard.