Kommentar

Anne Applebaum har skrevet en artikkel i sommerutgaven av Foreign Policy om USAs venner:

We all know the stereotypes of the anti–Americans: The angry Arab radical, demonstrating in the mythical Arab street; or the left–wing newspaper editor, fulminating at Berlin dinner parties; or the French farmer, railing against McDonald’s. Now, perhaps, we should add new stereotypes: The British small businessman, son of a coal miner, who once admired Thatcher and has been to Florida on holiday. Or the Polish anticommunist intellectual, who argued about Reagan with his Parisian friends in the 1980s, and disagrees with them about the Iraqi war now. Or the Indian stockbroker, the South Korean investment banker, and the Philippine manufacturer, all of whom have excellent relations with their American clients, all of whom support a U.S. military presence in their parts of the world, and all of whom probably harbor a fondness for President Bush that they wouldn’t confess to their wives. These stock figures should be as firmly a part of the columnists’ and commentators’ repertoire as their opponents have become.
They also matter, or should matter, to the United States. These people, and their equivalents in other countries, are America’s natural constituents. They may not be a majority, either in the world or in their own countries. But neither are they insignificant. After all, pro–Americans will vote for pro–American politicians, who sometimes win, even in Europe. They can exert pressure on their governments to support U.S. foreign policy. They will also purchase American products, make deals with American companies, vacation in the United States, and watch American movies.
They are worth cultivating, in other words, because their numbers can rise or fall, depending on U.S. policies. Their opinions will change, according to how American ambassadors conduct business in their countries, according to how often the U.S. secretary of state visits their cities, and according to how their media report on American affairs. Before the United States brushes away Europe as hopelessly anti–American, Americans should therefore remember that not all Europeans dislike them. Before Americans brush off the opinion of «foreigners» as unworthy of cultivation either, they should remember that whole chunks of the world have a natural affinity for them and, if they are diligent, always will.

In Search of Pro-Americanism

Weekendavisen tatt for seg dansk anti-amerikanisme i siste utgave:

«Den reelle politiske kritik knyttedes sammen med den fordomsfulde, chauvinistiske anti-amerikanisme. Den dag i dag er det vanskeligt at sondre mellem den legitime kritik og den xenofobiske, chauvinistiske anti-amerikanisme. De går ofte i spænd. Men fra 1960erne blev anti-amerikanismen udbredt som en 2_kommentarstream-holdning. Det ses også i sproget. Det var her, et meget dansk udtryk blev udbredt: Amerikanske tilstande. Det har vi siden brugt i alle mulige situationer, hvor vi vil udtrykke hovedrysten over forfald og dårligdomme.»
Under præsidentbesøget denne uge er den grumsede anti-amerikanisme kommet til udtryk på bannere, der lovede Død over Bush. Siden terrorangrebene 11. september 2001 har USA i den danske offentlighed måttet finde sig i hyppige sammenligninger med klodens værste regimer. Reel kritik eller hadefuld tilsnigelse?
«De helt urimelige sammenligninger – Guantánamo med Gulag og den amerikanske familiepolitik med Saudi-Arabiens – er en klassisk polemisk teknik. Og her ligger et stort problem. I dag findes anti-amerikanismen næsten kun i blandingsformer, hvor den kobles på relevant kritik. Men det svækker muligheden for at blive hørt og taget alvorligt af amerikanerne. Retorikken har til formål at gøre kritikken skarpere, men faktisk bliver den svagere,» siger Jesper Gulddal.

Danske Tilstande. Relevant kritik eller dansk selvhad?