I was surprised by
this Op-Ed in the New York Times this morning by
Susan Neiman of the
Einstein Forum. Based in Germany, she claims that most Europeans are not particularly wowed by Obama and much of the supposedly laudatory coverage of him is actually hard satire, not praise. She's just one opinion, obviously, but it is certainly a departure from the coverage I have seen in the U.S., where Obama is portrayed as having won the hearts and minds of Europeans.
Neiman makes a couple of observations that do jibe with my experiences traveling, doing business and living in Europe (or, at least, the UK) over the years.
"The mocking undertone that accompanies most descriptions of Mr. Obama in the European news media signifies a trans-Atlantic divide. George W. Bush made matters far worse than they ever were, but the neoconservatives who advised him were right about one thing: Europe is gripped by a world-weariness that resists American dreams."
This definitely matches my experience in talking about America and politics with Europeans over the last 8 years and more. After igniting two World Wars and bringing us the horrors of fascism, Nazism and Stalin, Europe does feel world weary and this is part of the reason why Europe is so resistant to military adventures like Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans are seen as naive optimists, something that is generally mocked as "unsophisticated" on the Continent and in the UK. While Obama may be charming, his "hope" message is actually a continuation of a stereotype of Americans that is not going to change if he is elected. And his personal popularity is highly unlikely to change European attitudes towards cooperation with the U.S. in places like Afghanistan.
Polls consistently show that the vast majority of Germans oppose any increased German military activity in Afghanistan. Obama is not going to change that, nor is Merkel going to risk backlash from her people to help Obama out. Sarkozy might get more involved, but since he is pretty openly chummy with Bush, it's hard to argue that Obama is changing anything. In the UK, I happen to know (through a close friend that worked for him when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer) that, despite some obligatory America-bashing to keep political face, Brown is an admirer of the United States and its energy. In Italy, Berlusconi is already an ally of Bush. So, politically speaking, what would Obama change? The former Soviet portion of Europe is already allied with the US.
"Berlin, in particular, is in the middle of a very post-heroic moment. Its former bravado about its history now approaches indifference."
This is something I, too, have noticed in many parts of Europe. Given the horrors of the 20th Century and the shame over 19th Century colonialism, most Europeans I have spoken to see their past (political and military, not cultural) as an embarrassment and prefer to look towards the future in a peaceful, united Europe. This trend seemed to be particularly prevalent in the UK, where the legacy of the Empire weighs heavily. And, again, this is a factor in why Europeans I have dealt with are so skeptical of the United States now. Having been top dog at one point, Europeans have seen the massive destruction that power can do globally and they fear America is making the same mistakes. I remember having lunch with a Swiss investor whose father was in the German Army and hearing him say, "I never thought I would see the day when America opened a concentration camp (i.e., Guantanamo)." His analogy is absurd, but the mindset that sees things like Guantanamo as a step towards bigger evils is not at all irrational.
On the other hand, a large part of anti-Americanism seems to spring from a younger population, removed from the direct experience of World War II, that is sick and tired of hearing from Americans about how we saved their asses in 1944. In Germany, this is compounded by a young population that is stuck with the shame of Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust but is too young to have any culpability. So, I do get the impression that there is a certain joy at being able to lecture America after having been lectured to for so many years. And having seen how often the American students brought it up when I was graduate school in the UK, I can't blame them.
Unfortunately, it also leads to some whitewashing of the actual history. Neiman, like Obama in his speech, uses a strange interpretation of the Berlin Airlift. In Obama's speech, he used the passive voice; the Berlin Airlift just "happened," and there is no mention of who organized and executed the actual airlift (hint: it wasn't the Europeans). Similarly, Neiman writes:
"So when Mr. Obama reminded Berliners of their greater moments — the airlift, the destruction of the wall — he risked more scoffing."
Was the airlift a great moment by Berliners? The Berlin Airlift is actually an example of what happens when Americans take action to protect a difficult cause. The French declined to participate at first because they believed that Berlin was a lost cause. They only came in later, when it was clear that it was working. It wasn't Berliners flying those planes into hostile territory, it was the United States Air Force. Yes, there was cooperation from Germans, but let's be real. No USAF and Berlin would have been part of the USSR. That Obama managed to gloss over that was not surprising. As I said, Europeans are pretty tired of hearing how we saved their asses in the 40s.
Neiman notes that the airlift proves you don't need to drop a bomb to be a hero, but this is a bit disingenuous. The reason that the airlift worked was because it was backed by American military power. If you had just sent in a bunch of French cargo planes, the Russians would have had no trouble shooting them down.
But these are minor quibbles. The point that Neiman is making, that the divide between Europe and America is deeper than antipathy towards Bush, is an important one. There is a pervasive myth that we had the love of the world after 9/11 and Bush squandered it. It's total bullshit. There was no shortage of "America had it coming" opinion in the European media the day after the attack or in the weeks to come. I remember listening to endless hours of that line of argument when I was in Europe just after the attack.
The Obama Europe trip was only a PR stunt to make him look Presidential. He is not going to suddenly close the very real divide in world view between America and Europe. The difference in perspective is deep and difficult to bridge.
(Pre-emptory note: Before StinkRock cries foul over the fact that I am quoting something in the New York Times, I will remind him that this is an Op-Ed piece, not a reportage or editorial opinion. Neiman doesn't work for the Times.)
