With Us or Against Us

Home > Nonfiction > With Us or Against Us > Page 12
With Us or Against Us Page 12

by Tony Judt


  Seventy-one percent of the French consider that the U.S. role in the

  Iraq crisis was not justified; 56 percent of them expressed their lack of

  comprehension of America’s role, 49 percent a sense of exasperation,

  44 percent expressed hostility, with only 14 percent indicating a

  degree of understanding, 9 percent respect, and 9 percent solidarity.

  The United States was resented above all as a power seeking to dom-

  inate the world. Given the choice between liberating a country’s

  people by overthrowing their tyrant and protecting “puny” little Iraq

  against the powerful and rich Americans, it would seem that the

  majority of the French opted for the latter alternative. When asked to

  which nation, the United States or Iraq, they felt closest to, 34 percent

  replied the United States, 25 percent Iraq, and 31 percent neither. And

  if 53 percent came in the end to prefer an American/British victory,

  there were still 33 percent in favor of Iraq winning.

  The battles waged by France in the UN was massively approved by

  the French who fully supported the line adopted by President Chirac

  and his minister for foreign affairs. Thus, 64 percent of the French

  (IPSOS, March 2003) were against any form of involvement in the

  conflict if the United States were to intervene without a second reso-

  lution of the UN Security Council. The issue of the veto became the

  primary means to counter the United States: if the United States were

  * * *

  French and European Public Opinion

  65

  to succeed in having a majority of the Security Council vote in favor

  of intervention, 69 percent of the French were in favor of France

  using its right to veto, which confirms the fact that stopping American

  intervention by all possible means was indeed a first imperative. This

  accounts for the French population’s unqualified support for their

  president. Three-quarters of the French considered that Chirac had

  not gone overboard in his opposition to the United States (IPSOS,

  March 2003), and, according to all the opinion polls, Chirac’s popular

  support rose dramatically during this period.

  Even though the major reason given by French political leaders, and

  by the president of the Republic himself, for opposing the American

  position was the question of whether or not the UN was to authorize

  intervention, a significant minority of the French appear to have

  adopted a decidedly pacifist stance; that is to say, opposition to the war

  whatever the UN chose to do. Thus, 52 percent of those opposed to

  military intervention (78 percent of the total) declared that they would

  not change their minds even if weapons of mass destruction were to be

  discovered in Iraq. In January, 60 percent of the French, according to

  Gallup, were against intervention even if supported by the UN.

  According to IPSOS (March 2003), even were the UN to approve,

  only 13 percent wanted France to take part in the conflict, whereas

  44 percent thought France should indicate support but not take part,

  and 41 percent thought France should stay completely out of it. This

  tendency can also be found in other European countries. Two thirds of

  the Spanish, three-quarters of the Swiss, and more than half of the

  Danish were against intervention even with the approval of the UN

  Security Council. Close to three-quarters of the Italians opposed inter-

  vention even if weapons of mass destruction were to be found.

  The issue of the use of force and the aggressive nature of American

  foreign policy can be seen as elements that crystallized European

  opinion except in the case of the British. These are the factors that

  pushed the Europeans into the “peace camp.” These are the issues

  that, for a major segment of public opinion, turned Jacques Chirac

  into the leader of the camp. Thus, in February 2003, two thirds of

  the Spanish wanted their government to adopt the Franco-German

  position and three-quarters of the Germans were in favor of closer

  cooperation between Chirac and Schröder.

  The Europeans and the American Model

  Returning once again to the conclusion of the July/October Pew

  Center report, opposition to the the American intervention “reflects a

  * * *

  66

  G érard Grunberg

  broader discomfort with the imposing U.S. presence around the

  world. Even those who are attracted to many aspects of American

  society, including its democratic ideas and free-market traditions,

  object to the export of American ideas and customs. People in every

  European country except Bulgaria are resentful of American cultural

  intrusion in their country.”

  Anti-Americanism, without doubt, spreads as well—and perhaps

  even primarily—as a reaction to a global model of society. In February

  2003 (13–15 February), BVA asked respondents to say whether the

  French should take America as an example in terms of its economic

  system, its culture, foreign policy, and social structure. The reply was

  an emphatic “no” in all areas: 64 percent “no” for the economic system,

  77 percent for cultural matters, 84 percent for the way of life, 80 percent

  for foreign policy, and 84 percent for the social structure. It is more

  than evident that the French see the Americans as very different from

  themselves and have no desire to see their society resemble the United

  States. Furthermore, a majority of the French think that France and

  the United States are increasingly taking opposite sides in the funda-

  mental economic and social debates of the day. The overriding impres-

  sion is that the two countries are growing steadily apart.

  Anti-Americanism and “Anti-Bushism”

  Present-day anti-Americanism is tinged, particularly in France, with a

  pronounced hostility directed at George W. Bush. From the IPSOS

  survey of March 2003, 82 percent have a negative image of the presi-

  dent of the United States (of which 46 percent are very negative). For

  BVA (February), 54 percent of those interviewed had a favorable opinion

  of the American people as against 35 percent unfavorable, whereas

  only 15 percent had a favorable opinion of George Bush as against

  76 percent unfavorable. George Bush is held personally responsible for

  the war. Thus, for IPSOS in March, 76 percent considered that the

  American position was closely tied to the personality of George Bush;

  only 17 percent thought the United States would have acted similarly

  under another president. And the French blame the United States for

  the deterioration of relations between the two countries.

  A survey conducted in France on the occasion of the spring elec-

  tions of 2002 (CEVIPOF/CIDSP conducted by the SOFRES)

  revealed the particular characteristics of the anti-Bush factor in the

  negative opinions of American policy. Anti-Bushism does not stem from

  the same sources as traditional anti-Americanism. Traditional anti-

  Americanism is primarily anticapitalism (table 3.3). The United States

  * * *

  French and European Public Opinion

  67

  Table 3.3

  Ant
i-Americanism and anticapitalism

  Attitudes

  Negative image

  of the U.S. (%)

  The word “profit” evokes:

  Something very positive

  32

  Something fairly positive

  38

  Something fairly negative

  56

  Something very negative

  66

  The term “globalization” evokes:

  Something very positive

  23

  Something fairly positive

  34

  Something fairly negative

  56

  Something very negative

  70

  Making money is:

  Not very important

  62

  Fairly important

  51

  Very important

  41

  Extremely important

  35

  Source: CEVIPOF/CIDSP/SOFRES.

  stands at the heart of the capitalist system, as the prime agent of

  globalization and its foremost beneficiary. It appears as a society that

  values money above all else.

  On these issues, there is no significant difference between anti-

  Americanism and anti-Bushism. This decidedly does not hold true

  when it comes to universal values (such as cultural liberalism, antiracism).

  The differences here emerge when the replies to a question concerning

  the United States are compared to those concerning Bush. The ques-

  tion on the United States was framed in these terms: “Does the word

  United States bring to mind something positive or something negative?”

  The question on Bush consisted of score of likableness (on a scale

  of 0 to 10). Half of the people interviewed had a negative opinion of

  the United States and likewise little liking (under a score of 5) for

  George Bush.

  Close analysis of the survey results shows that the image of the

  United States and that of George Bush do not entirely correspond.

  In fact, in comparison with traditional anti-Americanism, anti-

  Bushism retains its distinct characteristics. Table 3.4 lists the issues for

  which the differences between anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism

  were the most marked. Table 3.4 reveals, according to certain atti-

  tude and social class variables, the specific attributes of Bush’s image

  as opposed to that of the United States. These attributes concern

  * * *

  68

  G érard Grunberg

  Table 3.4

  Anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism

  Negative image

  Dislike

  of the U.S.

  of Bush

  (%)

  (%)

  France has too many immigrants

  Yes, absolutely

  42

  28

  No, not at all

  65

  76

  The death penalty should be reinstated

  Yes, absolutely

  44

  32

  No, not at all

  60

  67

  Islam evokes something

  Entirely negative

  51

  38

  Entirely positive

  46

  74

  Liberty is

  Extremely important

  54

  57

  Not very important

  54

  30

  National defence is

  Extremely important

  45

  37

  Not very important

  65

  78

  Ariel Sharon

  Extremely favorable opinion

  37

  17

  Extremely unfavorable opinion

  66

  71

  Voted Le Pen in the first ballot of the

  presidential elections of 2002

  40

  27

  Class self-identification

  Middle class

  38

  53

  Working class

  53

  45

  Educational level

  Elementary school

  47

  41

  College

  41

  61

  problems of immigration, Islam, national defense, individual liberty,

  and the image of Ariel Sharon. Dislike of Bush is strongest for those

  who are most opposed to the use of military force, who have a positive

  view of Islam and of immigrants, and who favor cultural liberalism

  and the defence of individual liberty. Bush stands clearly, for better

  or worse, for an aggressive interventionist America, authoritarian,

  repressive and racist, and supportive of Sharon’s government.

  Conversely, pro-Bushism is stronger than pro-Americanism in the case

  of those who are the most xenophobic, those who attach greater

  importance to the military capacity of their country, who are in favor

  of the death penalty, and who support Israeli policy. Jean-Marie Le

  Pen’s electorate is far less anti-Bush than anti-American.

  * * *

  French and European Public Opinion

  69

  Table 3.5

  Anti-Americanism in relation to economic liberalism

  and xenophobia

  Negative image of

  Dislike of

  the U.S. (%)

  Bush (%)

  High economic liberalism

  Very xenophobic

  37

  34

  Not very xenophobic

  44

  56

  Low economic liberalism

  Very xenophobic

  54

  38

  Not very xenophobic

  65

  76

  It is thus evident that Bush’s personality and policies constitute

  a factor apart within the larger context of anti-Americanism in

  general. It is a form of anti-Americanism based less on opposition to

  economic liberalism and more on hostility to cultural liberalism.

  Moreover, a number of studies have shown that a strong correlation

  exists between educational level and belief in cultural liberalism.

  Table 3.4 indicates, in effect, that French people on the lower end of

  the social scale were more anti-American than those of the higher

  classes, whereas their dislike of the president of the United States

  was not as great as that of the latter. Table 3.5 indicates that for

  non-xenophobic economic liberals, anti-Bush sentiment runs higher

  than anti-Americanism, whereas for those who are not economic

  liberals but are xenophobes, anti-Americanism is higher than anti-

  Bushism. However, the distinction between anti-Bushism and

  anti-Americanism should not be overdrawn. Those who are against

  both cultural and economic liberalism are both anti-American and

  anti-Bush.

  Relations between Europe and the United States

  Has the Iraq crisis brought about a change in relations between

  Europe and the United States? Are Europeans seeking to distance

  themselves from the United States? According to the report of the

  Pew Research Center survey of March 2003: “While critics of

  America’s foreign policies mostly blame the president, rather than

  America more generally, the poll finds strong support for the idea that

  Western Europe should take a more independent approach to security

  and diplomatic affairs. Majorities in four of five Western European
>
  countries surveyed hold this opinion and a 48% plurality in Great

  Britain agrees. In the U.S., by contrast, 62% believe diplomatic and

  * * *

  70

  G érard Grunberg

  security ties with Western Europe should remain as close as they have

  been.”

  Data gathered on the French side suggests the existence of a

  genuine crisis in Franco-American relations as seen by the French,

  but above and beyond the crisis, there exists a sizeable built-in

  minority who no longer sides with the United States. France and the

  United States appear to be drawing apart and this has serious impli-

  cations for the traditional alliance between the two countries:

  whereas 57 percent of the French, according to a BVA poll in

  February 2003, considered the alliance with the United States to be

  a positive factor, 39 percent did not. To be sure, 57 percent is a rela-

  tively high figure and it should warn us against concluding that

  today’s anti-Americanism reflects a refusal of the alliance. But the size

  of the minority opinion should be borne in mind. In the eyes of the

  French, what America has gained in power, it has lost in terms of

  legitimacy; as a result, the idea of what the ties between the two

  countries should be has of necessity undergone a change. The serious

  differences of opinion between the various European governments,

  that the handling of the Iraq crisis revealed, have led the French to

  reformulate their images of the heads of other European govern-

  ments. They disapprove of leaders or governments that have taken a

  stand in favor of the war. According to the IFOP survey of March,

  the percentage of favorable opinions of government leaders was

  Aznar 24 percent, Blair 22 percent, Berlusconi 20 percent, and Bush

  14 percent. On the other hand, percentages for those opposed to

  the war were: Chirac 85 percent, Schröder 71 percent, and Poutine

  47 percent. The issue is not simply one of transatlantic relations but

  of political divisions within Europe as well. One of the questions

  raised indirectly by the Iraq crisis is whether or not the governments

  of countries that supported the American intervention will suffer

  from it in the next general elections.

  As of now, the British exception goes to show that there is no

  common European public opinion. The British, after having disap-

  proved of their government, ended up by adopting the official line.

  Tony Blair remains the favorite for the next British elections. Above all,

 

‹ Prev