|
Radnor Geopolitical Report
by Ken Feltman
Paris
An article in the October 9 issue of Time Magazine's European edition, in which Ken Feltman is quoted, highlights Radnor's Decision-Maker research and includes information from our last two Radnor Geopolitical Reports on conflicts in attitudes between Europeans and Americans. Those two reports were based on Ken Feltman's remarks delivered in Paris in early September. This article continues the series and discusses two fundamental divides between Europeans and Americans.
PARIS - Viewed from a European vantage point, some American attitudes seem jingoistic, simplistic, even odd. When European media outlets report on what’s going on in the U.S., it is often in a way that makes Americans seem uninformed or oblivious. Sometimes, Americans living in Europe find it all quite embarrassing. Defending the United States is not easy, some of them tell us. From an American vantage point, many attitudes and some actions of Europeans seem counterproductive, hostile and petty.
Just how much of each continent’s perceived information about the other is valid? What can we learn from each other?
Perhaps if we step back and examine two crucial differences we can learn from each other's underlying attitudes, below the surface, seldom expressed. Sometimes we call these prejudices. Radnor’s European and American Conflict Indexes document the two most significant differences in Trans-Atlantic attitudes - (1) differences over whether terrorism can be eliminated or merely contained and (2) attitudes regarding support for Israel.
Can terrorism be eliminated?
The first major difference is over whether terrorism can be eliminated.
- A clear majority of Europeans seem to accept the idea that terrorism cannot be eliminated and will occur no matter what is done to try to prevent it.
- A smaller majority of Americans think terrorism can be - indeed, must be - eliminated.
- Many Europeans are amused when informed that Americans think terrorism can be eliminated. Frequently, they shake their heads at the naïve Americans.
- Informed that Europeans assume that terrorism cannot be stopped, merely contained, Americans react with confusion and surprise. Then, Americans tend to express the view that Europeans are part of the problem and are not working hard enough to prevent terrorism.?
|
This is the third in a series of newsletters based on a report Ken Feltman delivered in Paris in early September. You can review the two earlier reports - The American Conflict Index and Whiny Europeans - on this blog.
The fourth and final article will discuss the recent but growing resistance shown by some European political leaders to intimidating Muslim violence. |
As always, there is some truth and a fair share of misunderstanding on both sides of the Atlantic. But one thing is very clear: Europeans and Americans see terrorism through very different prisms.
When asked, focus groups throughout Europe kept coming back to the idea that terrorism cannot be eliminated. Not one European focus group reached a consensus that terrorism could be eliminated. Most, in fact, reached quick consensus that terrorism could not be eliminated. Some groups became entangled in trying to define such words as ‘contain’ and ‘eliminate.’ In country after country, however, Europeans expressed a view that because terrorism will happen anyway, it is best to do nothing to provoke the terrorists to do it close by.
A majority of Europeans also expressed uneasiness that the United States was in Iraq because any Western presence in the Middle East could cause more terrorism. Seemingly, because Europe is geographically closer to the Middle East, Europeans believe that the United States is making Europe less safe while not jeopardizing American territory.
Israel in the middle
The second important difference is over Israel.
- Neither continent may appreciate the deep division here.
- Many Europeans seem to believe that Israel, by its very presence in the Middle East, creates a potentially lethal issue.
- Americans tend to assume that Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself.
Some of the statements made by Europeans are harsh and extreme. Here is what some said about Israel:
- ‘I wish Israel would just go away.’
- ‘Why did we get this whole mess started by creating Israel?’
- ‘Israel is the cause of all the trouble.’
Most Europeans did not make or agree with such hostile expressions but it is telling that few came to Israel’s defense. In the U.S., when statements hostile to Israel were made, those opinions were usually countered by a supportive statement.
When we know that hostile attitudes about Israel are so openly expressed in European groups, and are left largely unchallenged, it is easier to see why certain European governments are inclined to be critical of Israel. No American group considered the idea that the elimination of Israel would be a positive step in the West’s relations with Muslims or the Middle East. A few European groups brought up and discussed the idea.
|
The power of online newsletters?
Two weeks ago, Ken Feltman wrote in Radnor's Inside Washington's Headlines that 'Republicans are in peril of losing both Houses of Congress. They are conceding many races to concentrate on closer races that will be decided by a few percentage points.'
Apparently, this statement triggered inquiries from political reporters to Republican campaign organizations. Spokespersons for the GOP organizations denied that they were conceding races and a few attacked Feltman, one calling him a 'hack.'
In the last several days, however, articles have appeared across the U.S. detailing the GOP abandonment of some Senate and House candidates - including incumbent Senators in Ohio, Montana and Pennsylvania. For example, the wire services carried stories this weekend and The New York Times covered the story on page 1 on Sunday, October 15.
So much for 'hacks.'
Meantime, Feltman yesterday defended the strategy as 'sound but sad for those who are abandoned. To retain the Senate and House, the Republicans must concentrate all available resources on the most promising contests. Politics is ruthless and President Truman was right when he said that if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.' ' |
In the United States, and over the same time frame, focus groups reached a very different consensus on Israel. The consensus was that while support for Israel may be uncomfortable for some nations, support was warranted on reasons of humanitarianism and justice.
So near and yet so far
Because most Europeans and most Americans are in the political middle, the attitudes on both sides of the Atlantic are very similar. Europe, however, leans a little bit left while the United States leans just a shade to the right. Europe's left wing tugs at the European middle and pulls the continent to the left. American conservatives pull the U.S. middle further right. This widens the gap between the continents - but it is a gap that is really not as wide as the pulling and tugging makes it appear.
Some general observations:
- Europeans express and agree with more practical statements, Americans with more idealistic ones.
- Americans often express altruistic thoughts, Europeans practice realpolitik.
The key differences are that Americans believe terrorism can be eliminated, but Europeans think Americans are misguided to think so. Europeans urge caution and think that containment is the best to be hoped for.
Europeans are wary of the use of force. Americans are much more likely to believe that a military solution would be the most effective. Here are some extreme statements made by Americans:
- ‘Why don’t we use our ultimate weapons before they get them?’
- ‘We need to stop fighting with one hand tied behind our back.’
- ‘Sure, the Europeans won’t like it, just because we’re doing it, no matter what it is we’re doing.’
To Europeans, these are frightening and aggressive statements, reckless and provocative.
In the United States
The differences we find between Europe and the United States are echoed in the debate that goes on within the United States. Many thoughtful Americans believe, as do many Europeans, that terrorism cannot be eliminated. They tend also to believe that it is more a local police action than a global military struggle.
This results in some contentious arguments within the U.S. when, for example, many Americans are willing to accord rights to terrorists that do not extend to military combatants. The arguments get more heated when some in the U.S. are willing to extend rights normally reserved for U.S. citizens to non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. Those individuals may be a minority, but they are vocal and assertive. Often, they are articulate and better educated as well as better off financially than others in the focus groups. Additionally, they are growing more and more frustrated and are now insisting on being heard.
The majority, who believe that we are involved in a long but necessary war with an elusive enemy, are angry and confused with the prosecution of the war by the Bush Administration. They are especially concerned with prisoner abuse and do not wish to argue over the applicability of the Geneva Convention. They abhor what they saw happening at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. They do not want their country engaged in abuse of any prisoner, no matter how hateful that prisoner’s plans or actions. There are ways to elicit information without torture, they say. Often, they express the ideal that the United States is a special place with special obligations.
Europeans see the debate over treatment of captured terrorists as one more American folly that is placing Europe in harm’s way. They are growing more restive, even impatient, and their governments will continue to take note.
So the view from one continent to the other remains cloudy and uncertain. Europeans hold their views by a narrow margin of public opinion and nudge their governments one way while, by a similarly narrow margin, Americans hold their views and nudge their government the other way. Amazingly, each continent is but a few percentage points - a few thousand people - away from the other continent’s point of view – but neither seems able to understand the other. Therefore, neither continent seems likely to budge.
We may all lose because of these serious misunderstandings - misunderstandings that are not so wide as we may think but which are made to seem wider by our adversarial political systems. Our news media, which thrive on highlighting controversy, however narrow the gap, are of no help to our mutual understanding of ourselves and the people across the Atlantic.
Please click here to review previous issues.
copyright © 2006 Radnor Inc.
|
