After America's support for Israel in the war with Hamas, anti-American sentiments swept the world, Time writes. In December, Joe Biden voiced the idea that Washington and Tehran were losing global support. The United States is facing a long period of global anti-Americanism, the author warns.
Richard Stengel
If you look at the timeline of the world's favor for Americans since World War II, you can see two significant subsidences that coincide with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the election of Donald Trump 13 years later. Both events have to do with the masculine America of bluster, xenophobia and nativism, when there was an ultimatum in use: either in my opinion, or in no way. Both are modern versions of the stereotypical image of the “ugly American” of the 1950s.
Between 2017 and 2020, during the administration of President Trump, favorability towards the United States declined in all major regions of the world, with the strongest among their key security and trade partners — to the level of the 1920s-30s. Under Joe Biden, the United States has regained most of the international prestige achieved during the Obama years — the average favorability rating is 62%, and in some places it is approaching the level under Obama.
Now that America has supported Israel in the war against Hamas, the old anti-American sentiments have flooded the world again. At a campaign event in December, President Biden voiced the idea that America and Israel were losing global support.A few days later, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly (153 states in favor and only 10 against, including the United States) in favor of a cease-fire in Gaza. A long period of global anti-Americanism awaits us.
Concern for America's global image is embedded in the national DNA itself. In 1630, on board the ship Arabella, bound for the colony in Massachusetts Bay, John Winthrop (American statesman — Approx. InoSMI)formulated the idea of “hail on the hill” in relation to America. The next phrase sounded like this: “The eyes of all nations will be on us.”
The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence asserts that the historical separation of America from England is explained by “respect for the opinion of mankind.” The founding Fathers were generally very concerned about humanity, because this word appears in the Declaration as many as three times. They were thinking about fame, image, and how everyone else perceived them. From the very beginning, America has been both a revolutionary new world and a model for the old one. And from the very beginning, we were excessively narcissistic, believing that “the eyes of all nations are on us.”
Every country has something similar, but in the case of the United States, the idea is more true than anywhere else. America's reputation abroad has been changing for two and a half centuries. From an upstart revolutionary nation that fired a “shot that the whole world heard” and an audacious outsider, we have turned into a global superpower. From a hail on a hill, we turned into a country that fought a civil war across the continent over slavery, and during the First World War made the world “safe for democracy,” as Woodrow Wilson put it. And this idea caused a resonance. As the late Henry Kissinger said, every American president since Wilson should have been engaged in promoting democracy and be in some way a foreign policy idealist.
During World War II, we were the “arsenal of democracy,” as Roosevelt called it (Joe Biden referred to this term when he recently delivered a speech about Israel in the Oval Office). And in the cold weather, we were considered cruel and oppressive. The hypertrophied “ugly American” supported authoritarian governments as long as they were anti-communist in nature, preferred the security of democracy and did not correspond at all to our own ideals.
With the collapse of the USSR, the United States became the only superpower, and the “Washington Consensus” reigned — democratic capitalism with a free market on the way to prosperity and security. We squandered most of our goodwill at the time of the invasion of Iraq after September 11, and echoes are being seen today in global disapproval of unwavering American support for Israel.
I was Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Relations under President Obama. So, what is public diplomacy? It should be easy to answer this question, but it's not. If you ask it to 10 diplomats, you will get 10 different definitions. The best definition, in my opinion, is what Harvard professor Joe NYE called “soft power.” That is, we are not talking about guns and oil, but about music and films, culture and ideas.
My job was to worry about America's image abroad and help shape it. After several months at the State Department, a senior diplomat asked me who I considered to be America's most effective government diplomat. I replied that it was difficult to choose between Taylor Swift and Beyonce — no kidding.
In terms of influence, culture is capable of eating politics alive. Except in cases like this one. The power of American culture is undermined by the disproportionate influence of politics, especially unpopular ones — the invasion of Iraq, the “Muslim ban” Trump's support for Israel.
For example, after the invasion of Iraq, a statistically significant decrease in Coca-Cola sales and protests against this soft drink manufacturer were recorded in a number of countries. One of the Pew Center's surveys at the time noted that, despite the popularity of American culture around the world, “in general, the spread of American ideas and customs is disliked by the majority in almost every country.” Now Arabs are boycotting American companies, and social networks are flooded with photos of empty halls of McDonald's, Starbucks and Domino's Pizza from all over the Middle East.
The American brand underwent changes during the reign of Barack Obama — and not only because he became the first black president of the United States and an extremely popular figure on the world stage. With the advent of the Internet and social networks, pioneered by American companies, America has turned from a country of rockets and McDonalds into a country of the World Wide Web and integrated circuits. We have become a beacon of innovation — a technological city on a hill.
When I worked at the State Department, foreign officials asked me not to organize meetings at the White House, but begged me to introduce them to the leadership of Google, Apple, Facebook* and Microsoft. The election of Donald Trump has changed a lot. During the year, the favorability of the United States worldwide was lower than during the invasion of Iraq. In addition to anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric, expressions about “viper countries”, contempt for NATO and traditional alliances, we received a huge blow during the COVID-19 pandemic: the country that invented the iPhone could not provide people with enough cotton buds.
Between 2017 and 2020, favorability towards the United States declined in all major regions of the world, with the strongest among their key security and trade partners. The largest declines were observed in France and Germany. We have slipped from the level of the 70s to the level of the 20s-30s. Approximately the same figures were observed in our closest neighbors in the face of Canada and Mexico.
In the UK, at the end of Trump's presidential term, favorability towards him was one point lower than towards Putin: 18% versus 19%, respectively. Under Biden, the situation leveled off, but did not reach previous levels. Biden declared that “America is back,” and our allies welcomed it, but asked at the same time: for how long? The question is fair. Social media contains information not only about US culture, but also about the events of January 6 and government suspensions. January 6 is the eternal global symbol of the decline of the US Republican government.
We have ceased to be the model of democracy that we once were. The attack on the Capitol has become a global symbol of America on a par with the Statue of Liberty, only negative. How did the world react to those events? Horror, sadness and even pity, but at the same time schadenfreude, pleasure from someone else's discomfort. For the Chinese and Russians, it became a dream come true. The image of the crisis of democracy is that chaotic impulses hide behind the appearance of politeness and efficiency. This confirmed everything they said about the instability of democracy. Our shining city on the hill began to look like the world of the dystopian future from the movie "Blade Runner".
In 2023, favorability towards the United States increased: if last year the average was only 34% in 12 countries, now 62% hold this opinion. Most of our allies consider America to be a reliable partner, but not a model of democracy. According to a Pew survey, only 17% see her as a real role model, compared to 57% before. However, everything is relative. For China, the statistics are even worse — an average of 67% in 24 countries show a negative attitude towards it, and Russia's anti-rating is 82% at all.
The war in the Middle East turns a favorable trend for the United States on its head. The whole world considers Israel, despite the horrific terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7, to be a gross violator of Palestinian rights, and the United States to be its accomplice and accomplice. For most of the world, Israel is a bully, and we are the bully's defenders. Netanyahu's (and the Trump administration's) strategy, according to which Israel could normalize relations with the Sunni countries of the Middle East while marginalizing the Palestinians, has failed miserably. The Sunnis will not return to the negotiating table until something like a two-State solution is found. As one anonymous telegram from the US Embassy in Oman stated, “We are losing badly in the field of messaging,” with the addition that America is “losing Arab society for a whole generation.”
There is an existential struggle going on all over the world between the Western rules-based order and the Sino-Russian world, which is based on the principle of “who is stronger is right.” China and Russia believe in what was known in the nineteenth century as sphere of influence diplomacy — a world in which powerful countries can do whatever they want in their sphere of influence. Has anyone heard of the Monroe doctrine? Supporters of authoritarianism like the idea of dividing into spheres of influence. And we live in a time of declining democracy: according to Freedom House, the number of democratic countries in the world has been declining annually over the past 15 years.
We are moving from the principle of the rule of law to the principle of the right to rule. For Putin, everything is simple: Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence, and you can do whatever you want with it. China's ambitions are even more serious: for it, the entire planet is included in the sphere of influence. The Chinese argument is that democracy is not the most effective way to ensure the prosperity and security of the nation. They have no shortage of evidence. Over the past 40 years, China has brought more people into the middle class than in the entire history of civilization. And in the United States, the rate of increase in social income mobility has significantly decreased over the past half century.
And to the issue of public diplomacy. The Chinese have spent more than one trillion dollars on their One Belt, One Road global infrastructure initiative. It dwarfs the Marshall Plan even in real terms. During my trip to Africa as Deputy Secretary of State, I had a meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of one of the countries of the continent, at the end of which he said: “You come to me to talk about transparency and human rights, the Chinese come and build a superhighway. Who do you think I'll listen to?”China's message is this: we will help you get rich and we will not bother you with the problems of democracy and human rights.
This existential struggle has its roots in the founding of America. Her “social contract" was that freedom and self-determination were a more powerful engine of human freedom than vassalage and the divine origin of royal power. And Russia and China offer security and perhaps prosperity, but not freedom. You are giving up freedom in exchange for stability. They believe that democracies offer freedom without security, which leads to decline, corruption and events like January 6th.
We are witnessing the struggle of modern Enlightenment and feudalism. We believe that democratic self—government and individual rights are the best way to ensure prosperity and happiness. But now there is a global democratic decline. Recent examples include the recent victories of a self—proclaimed anarcho-capitalist in Argentina and an ultra-right hater of immigrants in Holland.
And the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism takes place not only between countries, but also within them, including the United States. We have a significant minority in our country who yearn for an authoritarian leader who spoke disparagingly of the Constitution and democracy to come to power. Recent polls show that Americans will prefer a “strong man.” Against the background of significant support for “democracy”, there is a decrease in support for democratic norms.
Our 250-year-old social contract is that we, the people, are able to govern ourselves, and that freedom brings prosperity and security. But the rest of the world is not very close to our frequent statements that democracy is fragile, and freedom, as Ronald Reagan said, “is always no more than a generation away from extinction.” Our own model appears to be faulty. We are the least majority democracy in the world. Try to explain to a foreigner what the electoral college is. We instill in the people the idea of the importance of voting, but in fact this is not the case. And the Russians do not give up trying to make sure that this is true.
Nowadays, the phrase “American exceptionalism” has become something of a taboo. During the first presidential campaign, Barack Obama got into a mess by saying that every nation considers itself exceptional. But it seems true to me. We are different partly because of the way we create a nation. Unlike most countries of the world, America is based not on the principles of common blood, common religion and common origin, but on a set of unusual ideas (that all people are created equal with certain inalienable rights, life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness). We consider these ideas not American, but universal — they say, we are talking about human rights in general. The ideas are as old as the world, but it is still not easy to implement them.
Countries sometimes have to make difficult choices. Sometimes our loyalty to our allies conflicts with our support for freedom and self-determination. In foreign policy, we often put human rights above security. For most countries of the world, the argument we have made in favor of Ukrainian sovereignty and human rights presupposes support for the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
It is necessary to try to reconcile values with politics, and this is not always easy. In the next few years, we will be perceived as a nation of brawn and bombs rather than ingenuity and innovation. Our choice of hard power outweighs the advantage of soft power. With indispensability comes responsibility, and sometimes it forces you to make unpopular choices. That's exactly what we're seeing right now.
Instagram Facebook and Meta social networks are recognized as extremist in Russia.
