Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, July 2. 2009
I always found the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's feuilleton to be weird compared to the rest of the paper, but this book review (in German) by Edo Reents is beyond weird, i.e. it is outrageous. The book tries to explain why the Dreyfus Affair matters today and is written by the US novelist Louis Begley. The reviewer claims: ". the Bush government, which, inasmuch as it illegally imprisoned and tortured people, essentially behaved no differently than the National Socialists."
So, now John Rosenthal was able to state in Pajama's Media: "German Daily: Bush Was Hitler" And it is this sort of blog posts and headlines that seems to give quite a few Americans the impression that Bush-Hitler comparisons are a common feature in the German media. I find that quite unfortunate, but I admit that these crazy comparisons (or even equations) do happen and are worse than their exaggerations on some US blogs, like on the American Thinker.
Related posts on Atlantic Review: Two More Americans Accuse Germany of Historical Revisionism and Top Democrat on Auschwitz, Guantanamo and Europe
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
German Politics, International Economics, Transatlantic Relations on Monday, April 6. 2009
Chancellor Merkel uses her opposition to Obama's financial policies to campaign for reelections, writes Malte Lehming from the German Tagesspiegel.
According to Lehming, Angela Merkel is following Gerhard Schroeder's anti-Iraq war strategy, but implements it in a more sophisticated way:
Is the financial crisis for Angela Merkel what the Iraq war was for Gerhard Schröder -- namely, a reason to seriously strain Germany's relationship with the U.S.? One need not answer with an unconditional "yes" to be very concerned. (...)
There's no question, Mrs. Merkel has good substantive arguments on her side. Mr. Schröder had some as well when he opposed George W. Bush before and during the Iraq war. Nevertheless, Americans and the German opposition -- namely, Mrs. Merkel's Christian Democratic Union -- accused Mr. Schröder of dishonesty. After all, his antiwar views were also motivated by electoral strategy and were not entirely free of general anti-Americanism.
Continue reading "WSJ: "In Berlin, Obama's Becoming Just Another Bush""
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
Transatlantic Relations on Sunday, January 18. 2009
Americans will soon pay more for a precious piece of French Roquefort. The American government has as a last, petty gesture in its trade policy decided to raise tariffs on the product from 100 to 300 percent. This is part of a more general round of retaliatory tariffs in response to the ban the European Union maintains on beef produced with growth hormones. But it is clear that Roquefort has been targeted for political sensitivity, as the Independent writes:There was a violent reaction in France when import duties were first raised on roquefort cheese 10 years ago. The small farmers' leader José Bové – then a roquefort producer – began his rise to international celebrity by attacking a McDonald's restaurant at Millau, near Roquefort, with mallets and a bulldozer in August 1999. The main effect this will have is making Roquefort more exclusive. And, perhaps, something of a political statement among Michael Pollan fans and the like. I do hope the French embassy will react appropriately at societal events. If the new administration does not dial this back...
Continue reading "Cheese Wars and Strong Coffee"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Tuesday, August 19. 2008
"Georgia crisis sparks Anti-American sentiment in Germany," declares Dialog International: I know George W. Bush is unpopular in Germany (as he is in the US) but I was unprepared for some of the pro-Putin opinions that have been expressed in the German media and especially in the German blogosphere. There was considerable Schadenfreude on many German fronts that Russia's invasion of Georgian territory was a blow to the foreign policy of the US, and the conflict in Georgia is viewed by some as a proxy war between Russia and the US, with jubilation that Putin has been victorious on all fronts. Is the German media really supportive of Putin? Compared to US media that might indeed be the case, because large parts of the US media tend to support poor little Georgia -- one of the first Christian nations, as McCain reminds us -- against the big Russian bear, who ran the communist, evil empire. Okay, the US media is a bit more sophisticated, but many media reports painted a picture of good guys and bad guys:
Continue reading "German and US Media Coverage of Georgia War is Biased! What a Surprise!"
Posted by Editors in
US Foreign Policy on Thursday, July 10. 2008
This is a guest post by Joe Noory:
For the past two weeks the story has been making the rounds. Fouad Ajami of the School for Advanced International Studies offers a recitation of the timbre of the traditional hatred floating around between Europe and the Near East. The title of his Wall Street Journal op-ed is "Anti-Americanism Is Mostly Hype", but seems to end up being betrayed by selectively deciding the bombings of the 80's and 90's being little other than hype, not to mention the Hizballah's debutante party on Marines stationed in Beirut as part of an Palestinian-Israeli cease fire, the holding of American diplomats as hostages in Teheran, and so forth:
Continue reading "A Title (Mis)Match"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Tuesday, July 1. 2008
"The United States is simply becoming more irrelevant" to Europeans, writes Ellen Creager in Detroit Free Press:
The United States is barely mentioned on TV news networks like the BBC, Sky News, Deutsche Welt, or in newspapers, but when it is, it is with condescension. I’m not sure why, but it’s a big change from a few years ago. I can feel it: The United States is losing — or has lost — its mojo in Europe. Fewer people care what we’re doing or why. Fewer people look up to us. Our reputation is as low as the value of a dollar here, and that’s pretty low.
I don't quite agree with the analysis, but I love the mojo headline.
Another good headline I am nuts about is: "It’s Not About the T Shirts," which serves to draw attention to a Newsweek article by Matt Frei, chief anchor of BBC World News America. He argues that "Europeans should beware the perils of Obamamania."
Posted by Sonja Bonin in
Transatlantic Relations on Tuesday, May 20. 2008
Gordon Brown’s administration, despite its domestic (foremost economic) troubles, has a great foreign policy opportunity, claims Philip Stephens in the Financial Times:
The next year or so offers Britain the best chance in a generation to get its foreign policy right. Whoever wins the White House, the time has come for Britain to rebalance its European and transatlantic relationships. [...]
While Foreign Minister David Miliband insists on the "special relationship" between Britain and the US, he's also been making remarks hinting at a new recognition of Great Britain being part of Europe, says Stephens.
The implication is that a British government will speak from a European perspective in Washington as much as from a US one in Paris or Berlin. Behind this – at least I hope this is what Mr Miliband means – is an understanding that strong ties between London and Washington work in Britain’s interest only in so far as they also reflect wider transatlantic cohesion. [...] What has changed [though] is that a less subservient British relationship with Washington need no longer imply a weakening of broader transatlantic ties. The message for Britain from the Iraq war was that it could not have the best of both worlds – a privileged place in Washington and a leadership role in Europe. But France too learned a tough lesson: it cannot unite Europe against the US. [...] The governments of Europe’s three most powerful nations are now more or less at one. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy has abandoned his predecessors’ anti-Americanism. Angela Merkel has restored Germany’s Atlanticist tilt. [...] What this means is that Mr Brown can be at once pro-European and pro-American.
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Monday, April 28. 2008
France has signaled over the past few months that it may pursue reintegration into the NATO command structure, which President Charles de Gaulle fitfully left in 1966. A sympathetic member of the French National Assembly published an article in Newsweek arguing this move is, “no less than a revolution for NATO and transatlantic relations.” The article explains Sarkozy's proposed tradeoff:
By showing that France is America's trusted friend again, Sarkozy hopes to gain influence on American policy, and, in particular, on lifting the longtime U.S. veto on European defense.
This is an interesting proposal: France will rejoin NATO if it can pursue its own parallel EU military structures. Many in the US defense establishment have long been concerned that a more autonomous European Security and Defense Policy is intended to act as a counterweight to the United States, or that it will duplicate/detract from NATO programs and assets. As Soeren Kern of the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos states in World Politics Review:
… most of Sarkozy's proposals seem to be geared toward creating a rival European defense structure that over time will duplicate but not double NATO resources… Indeed, some of the more U.S.-leaning European states suspect that France's renewed interest in rejoining NATO is in fact a Trojan horse designed, ultimately, to destroy the Atlantic Alliance from within.
At the same time, the United States has been pushing Europe to build stronger military capabilities since the Alliance was born, based on a plea for "burden sharing." One common sentiment, although often expressed with reserve, is that “it doesn’t matter where the forces come from, so long as they come.” By rejoining NATO, Sarkozy may be able to strike a balance of confidences between what on the face appears to be double-think: convincing America of France’s commitment to Atlanticism, while concurrently pursuing greater European military autonomy.
However, Soeren Kern points out that even if Sarkozy’s intentions are Atlanticist in nature, they will probably not outlast his term of presidency:
For most of the French ruling elite (the anti-American Left and the nationalist Right), the United States is considered to be the main problem in international affairs because of its reluctance to share its power. The only solution, in their view, is a French-led EU superstate that can counterbalance America on the global stage. And a unified EU foreign and defense policy that is completely independent of NATO (i.e., the United States) is essential to achieve equal status. Until then, anti-Americanism will continue to be the preferred means to accelerate the process of loosening the transatlantic link.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Europeans View China as the Biggest Threat to Global Security
• Europe is a Threat to the United States
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Wednesday, April 16. 2008
In April 2006, the Atlantic Review posted Poll: 45% of Germans consider U.S. more dangerous than Iran.
Perceptions have changed. Spiegel International reports: China has now overtaken the United States as the greatest perceived threat to global stability in the eyes of Europeans, according to the opinion poll commissioned by the Financial Times. The poll, carried out by the Harris agency between March 27 and April 8 and published on Tuesday, found that 35 percent of respondents in the five largest EU states see China as a bigger threat to world stability than any other state.
Moreover, the United States is also doing better in popularity contests: Atlantic Community noted: "For the first time since 2005, the number of people abroad that view the US as a positive force has increased slightly, to 35 percent."
Related posts in the Atlantic Review:
• Europe is a Threat to the United States
• Transatlantic Foreign Policy Attitudes and Threat Perceptions
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Tuesday, April 8. 2008
Why is there so much Anti-Americanism? Lewis Black gives one explanation in a Broadway comedy show in 2004: The most important part of travel, is when you come home. Because, that's when you see your country with new eyes. I was amazed to realize that we're - we're the only country that - that tells the rest of the world, on a nearly constant basis, that we're the greatest country on Earth. And that is a little f***in' obnoxious! And they know it's obnoxious. Because, if you were in an office, and there was someone there, who came in every day and said; "I'm the greatest fucker here! And you snivelling shits would die without me! Ahahahaha!" I can guarantee that by the end of the week, you'd have killed him! And eaten him, just to try to possess his power!
The Youtube video below includes the above quote and some funny comments about US obsession with health and about milk:
Or shall we chill out and ignore both the Europeans, who complain about US arrogance, and the Americans, who complain about Anti-Americanism in Western Europe? After all boasting about one's country might be considered pretty normal around the world, except in Western Europe. Many Western Europeans dislike nationalism and boasting and instead prefer to put down arrogant others. At least this is what one commenter suggested as previously mentioned:
I think anti-Americanism is some kind of weird, inverted nationalism for people who don't think nationalism is cool (think about it, what better way to believe in the superiority of your nation without being explicit about it?)
Related posts in the Atlantic Review:
• America's Cultural Superiority
• The Anti-Americans and the Manichaean Narcissists
• Is it Anti-Americanism or just Disappointment and Sensitivity?
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Tuesday, April 8. 2008
Another reason for Anti-Americanism could be that the United States is held to a higher standard, because US presidents make bigger promises than any European head of state or government.
The mismatch between by the US rhetoric and policies invites harsh criticism. Take for instance this promise from President Bush's second inauguration speech in January 2005:
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
And then look at the US response to the uprising in Burma in autumn 2007. The Bush administration did not stand with the monks. The European governments were not any better, but they did not make big promises about supporting liberty.
Burma is pretty much vanished from the European and American mainstream media coverage. Oh, wait a second, AP just reports that "US First Lady Laura Bush has conferred an award honoring the women of military-ruled Myanmar in their determined battle to restore democracy and human rights in the Southeast Asian state." Awesome. The US has once again shown great leadership. I am sure this award will end tyranny nd bring liberty to Burma.
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues on Friday, February 22. 2008
The Moscow News Weekly has published an article on Kosovo's declaration of independence, which from its tone I assumed was in the "Comment/Opinions" section. However, it turns out it was actually in the "World News" section. Here is a snippet:
While burning KFOR checkpoints may not be the best of ways for Kosovo's ethnic Serbian minority to express its anxiety and anger over recent events, global democratic leaders should think twice before voting to award a chair to Kosovo on New York's East River. In the Basque country, Quebec, Belgium, northern Cyprus, Georgia and many other places across the globe, they have TV sets, too, and are watching. Telling them Kosovo is different and unique won't work. That's the price you pay for being a hypocrite, I guess.
Not to say western newspapers are completely objective, but at least you can read multiple perspectives on a story on this side of the Urals, without worrying about whether your favorite columnist may mysteriously die one day.
Of course this is only one article in one newspaper; it may not be fair to judge the entire Russian media based on this article alone. To get a better idea of press freedom trends globally and by country, you can check out an annual report produced by Freedom House titled "Freedom of the Press." The 2007 version reported this for Russia:
Media freedom in Russia continued to be curtailed in 2006 as President Vladimir Putin’s government passed legislation restricting news reporting and journalists were subjected to physical violence and intimidation. Although the constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, authorities are able to use the legislative and judicial systems to harass and prosecute independent journalists.
|
or 
:
Latest Comments
the idea of a transatlantic alliance isn't new, it already was Roosvelt and churchill [...]Comments ()
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
I'm not at all afraid of a true free trade area with Europe, the Reagan/Thatcher [...]Comments ()
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
Tis true, Pat. Actually the baning of US produce from the EU isn't the fault of the [...]Comments ()
Pat Patterson about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
In re; Roland Emmerich has been making films about the either a radically altered [...]Comments ()
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
"And three years later it is likely to get even worse, because "there is a movement [...]Comments ()
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
"cause the Earth to topple from its axis" Global Warming? Well, that certainly [...]Comments ()