Is the US viewed as an interrnational bully?

Yes, I think most of the world sees the USA as a bully. We expect to be able to meddle in everyone else's affairs and yet they can't meddle in ours. We have 40% of the world's military might and dominate the world's finances. What country in the world would dare to refuse us its milk money?

We're a relatively benevolent despot, though. Most other countries in our position would be much worse bullies.

I know that a lot of people here in Germany sees the U.S. as a self-proclaimed universal police, who's trying to tell them(the germans) how to think and act in international politics... Which they like as much as the americans! A lot of people here also dislikes the way the U.S. Government is handling the Kyoto-agreement, and other ecological aspects (SUVs and such!).

Me, I say that we need a strong hand somewhere, but it should be done with the UN, not making it a national question...

Re: Is the US viewed as an interrnational bully?


Hardly. The claims of the US being an International bully have been around for quite some time.

aahhh--- yup, fishin's right on that one....

Thanks to a2k, I realize that is the world's general perception. I'm going to go ahead and say that my perception is that certain elements in the world could use a bit of bullying, while some other developed nations are assuming any duties directly related to their own well being.

I should add that there are many countries that see the US as a bully and have for some time. Some, because we've actually stepped on their toes. Others because we seem to have supplanted them in a leadership role internationally and still others because we seem to have gotten away with things that they got crucified for doing previously.

Some of the feeling is justified, some of it probably isn't.

• Are We Big, Ugly Americans Again?




It may not be unusual for an American to be booed at an environmental conference these days, but it may be noteworthy that many of the countries attending the event are friends of the United States.
"I think a lot of people see a greedy bully," says Vuyo Mvoko, a journalist with SABC television in South Africa, "someone who is prepared to run roughshod over other people's interests."

It was a theme that was repeated over and over again when ABCNEWS consulted journalists around the world about the way the United States is perceived at the moment.

"The people in Germany, we accept that you are, in a way, stronger," said Peter Kloeppel of RTL television in Germany. "But what we don't accept is that you just come to conclusions and make decisions without ever putting into consideration what it might mean for other nations — like, for example, the Germans."

"Japanese people think the American people are a friendly people," said Hidetoshi Fujisawa of the Japanese television network NHK. "But these days, some are thinking of them as a little bit self-centered and not knowing much about what is happening outside of the United States."

In France, a poll published this week reported a rise in hostility to U.S. policies.

"They are too much interested in their own personal business," said Christian Malar, a senior foreign analyst for France 3 TV. "They're concerned only by their own personal interest, not caring enough about the interest or sharing interest with their own friendly countries and their own allies."

Going It Alone

As the United States debates going it almost alone against Iraq, the question of whether anti-U.S. views are on the rise is more than academic. State Department officials are sufficiently concerned about growing anti-American sentiment in Europe and Russia, as well as the Middle East, that they have invited a select group of scholars to address the topic at a private conference that started this past Thursday.

As ABCNEWS polled journalists from mainly friendly nations about those attitudes, some consistent themes emerged. Chief among them was concern, even resentment, over the Bush administration's apparent willingness to act without consulting the United States' friends — old ones or new ones.

"What is of most concern to Russians in American policy is the desire seen that U.S. always wants to have the American way, desire to always be on top, to be the only leader, actually to have partners not allowed to disagree," said Alexei Puhkov of Channel 3 in Russia. "This makes Russians nervous.

"The question of Iraq in Russian foreign policy is much more a question of Russian attitudes toward the United States," he added. "Will the United States once again take unilaterally the power to decide which country is a good country and which country is a bad country? Will the United States take another time the right to decide whether to start a war against a sovereign state or not?"

"We are very much worried about the overall attitude of the American foreign policy," said Fujisawa, the Japanese journalist. "We think it to be unilateral, too unilateral and we have a wariness that the American foreign policy is becoming too unilateral to follow."

Nearly all of the journalists made a point of making a distinction between negative views about American policies and the enduring affection and admiration for the American people and their way of life — which perhaps may be some comfort to the Bush administration as it debates how best to defend that way of life.

Anger on Environment

There were other concerns apart from Iraq, such as the perceived lack of interest in global issues given higher priority by allies, like the environment. For example, Powell was heckled in Johannesburg in part because some delegates were angry at President Bush's absence from the event, a conference on the environment and development.

"What we have seen for the last year is a strong environmental movement," said Kloeppel, the German journalist. "We have the feeling America should really be more conscious about the global environment, and not just always say, 'It's our economy that's first.' I think what a lot of Germans say is 'Let's think about our global environment because it's something that belongs to all of us.'"

The Bush administration's strong pro-Israel stance also is an irritant in some countries, like France, that have stronger ties in the Arab world or stronger Arab constituencies.

"They are scared that if the United States has a too much pro-Israeli attitude that we will never get peace in the Middle East," said Malar, the French media analyst. "They would like United States [to have] which involvement is necessary for all conflict in the world to be dealt with, but they wish that this involvement could be more balanced."

Sole Superpower

And some so-called anti-American feeling, these correspondents said, was really just acknowledgement that the fate of small nations is so inextricably bound to desires of the United States, the world's sole superpower and largest economy.

"We know that when the U.S. sneezes we get pneumonia," said Félix de Bedout of UniNoticias television in Colombia.

"I think that many Israelis will tell you that the decisions, the critical decisions concerning what's happening here, are not taken in the prime minister's office in Jerusalem, but in the Oval Office in the White House in Washington," said Emmanuel Rosen, diplomatic affairs correspondent for Channel 2 in Israel. "And that the most important meetings that the … Israeli prime minister has are not with his foreign minister or minister of defense or chief of staff, but with the president of the United States."

But some argue the United States should pay attention to the world's interests, not just its own.

"If you look again at how America relates to certain leaders and certain dictators, it kisses some but spits at others," said Mvoko, the South African. "Now, those are some of the problems that people would like to see America dealing with more thoroughly and listening to what the rest of the world really has to say."

Many people in many countries around the world including their leaders look on the U.S. as opportunistic and doubt our leader's true motives. We do a poor job of selling ourselves other than plopping down yet another McDonald's to promote heart attacks in their populace (this among other things trivializing the foreign aid to those countries). But this is is not just joshing around -- I suggest reading Gore Vidals new book, "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace -- How We Got To Be So Hated" if you want to read some concise and potent essays with some alarming historical data. It shows a tragic failure of our diplomacy and our ability to show the crass commercial side of America rather than the heart.

'Tis a complicated question, in my view - and not all of it can be discussed using "rational" criteria.

I think the truth is, almost regardless of the United States' behaviour - (and there is much to criticise, some of which has already been mentioned, and more of which doubtless will - I will be interested to look at what Vidal says, for instance) - that other countries love to hate you - even when they quite like you!

This is, I think, a function of your power, richness and popular cultural dominance. I think as well as legitimate grievances and admiration, that the US tends to attract all the projections we have about powerful figures in our lives - some of these projected feelings being quite primitive and difficult to deal with. (One could, perhaps, look to the US view of the USSR as an interesting parallel of this process...)

This has probably been exacerbated by your late and decisive intervention in two world wars - especially the second - being helped (my country would doubtless have been brutally conquered by the Japanese) is never an uncomplicated thing - except possibly be emergency workers!

I think this leads to a strong ambivalence about the US - and dissonance of emotions and cognitions always leads to some discomfort with that which arouses them, as well as making rational thinking and judgment difficult.

I am often, for instance, struck by how black and white the analysis and judgments of my friends become about the US - or should I say black? - it seemingly being difficult for them to maintain a more balanced view, which I am often in trouble for promoting (at least in my view!)

I could join in the discussion about what is wrong/right about US policies and pursuit of its goals - but others will do that. iwas simply interested in exploring a little of the psychology - that being my field - of the relationship the rest of the world has with you guys.

So this is where all the nice people from Abuzz went!

I hesitate to call the US an international bully. Many of these countries who criticize us now were begging for us to intervene in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

However, I firmly believe that the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) are clearyl responsible for nurturing these charges with their arrogant attitudes and their contempt for international institutions.

Nice to see everyone again.

Welcome maggots. Oddly, some of the nicest people here seemed a little bristly on other forums. It's a welcome change, huh?

maggots ate my brain
Welcome aboard.

ah, maggots...

Nothing much to add, really, just, for the most part, listening.

It seems to me that a lot of the verbal attacks levelled at and by the United States are defensive and ad hominem in nature. "How can you criticize us for this when you do that?" -- this kind of thing.

Not much of an observation.

Listening, like I said...

Interestingly, after finding this thread this morning I've been doing a little Web searching and have found references to statements of the US being an international bully going back as far as the Andrew Johnson Administration (1865-1869).

The only administration I haven't found a refernce for is James Garfield's but the major focus of his 6 month adminstration (before he was shot..) was on getting his cabinet nominees approved by the Senate so he didn't get to a point of doing much internationally.

From our very birth, we were considered "uppity". (You know, waging war against Britain, and having the audacity to win was considered a dubious start diplomatically.)

It seems to have been down hill since, diplomatically.

Our very existence seems to be a reason for hatred to some.

In agreement with most posters here. The issue seems clear from a historical standpoint, and squewed from the political.

It appears that some other countries,
including some good friends and allies overseas are
indeed looking over at the USA now, and saying,
"Who do they think they are?" The USA's repeated
failure to deal with mounting problems on the home
front, issues facing us all - issues needing swift
resolution, so why, indeed, should we be pushing and
shoving where it is neither wanted nor appreciated.
Other nations are not being fed our daily doses of
propaganda and rationalization for actions we are
involved in....so that they can see us as we actually
are - rather than the way we WANT to be seen, thus
causing the US to appear to other nations as bullying
and self proclaimed world leaders, believing that we
KNOW ALL, WE CAN CURE ALL AND ACTUALLY ARE
THE SUPERMAN OF THE WORLD TODAY. Why don't
we deal with OUR problems at home, rather than
sticking our noses into places where we are not
appreciated nor even invited. Bush's interests here
seem to be a little more personal than political and
don't appear as if based on what is "best" for the rest
of the world. As if we were intelligent enough to have
a clue about that topic. WE ARE STILL A NATION
INCAPABLE of taking care of our own home front issues
and dilemmas and until we do so .... we can only expect
to be looked down upon as a nation of people who
can not practice what they preach

I've never lived in a country (outside the US) where the majority of the people I knew did not consider the US to be a bully. Most of those people loved America but hated our foreign policy.

I have to agree with 2 points already made here.

It has little to do with this administration (though the complaints certainly increased with this administrations bent for hard hitting rhetoric).

We have been a benevolent empire as far as empires go (though there is A LOT to gripe about if you aren't American).

Everywhere the police are disliked, when the police are partial (we are not impartial globo cops) resentment is greater.

When I was a young student in school, I often wondered why nearly all teachers were such jerks - testy, judgemental, full of odd quirks and mannerisims, etc. I contrasted them to my classmates who, for the most part, were agreeable, sophisticated (in my view) and 'with it'. I occasionally wondered, what happend to teachers along the way - after all they were once students.

Much later I recognized that the difference is the teacher was in the front of the room and the object of everyone's attantion. All of his/her warts and awkward moments were visible to all, while those of the students were hidden in the crowd. The same was true of Commanding Officers in the service, of CEO's in business, etc., etc.

The United States is, by a large margin the largest economy in the world, the principal exporter of new cultural phenomena, the principal military power, and generally a principal object of the attention of people and governments throughout the world.

Moreover the United States is the leader of the alliance that won and survived a very serious struggle with a feared and generally despised adversary. Suddenly, after over 40 years of bipolar tension, the struggle is over, the opposing empire crumbled. The United states appears for the moment to have no rivals who might either threaten it seriously or, more significantly, even counterbalance its influence in the world.

It does not require much imagination to conclude that these circumstances alone could explain most or all of what is being noted and discussed on this thread. Moreover, I believe this is the most likely explanation.

After two years of slaughter in Bosnia, the United States was heavily criticized by most of the European powers for a reluctance to insert its ground forces into that conflict (in the heart of Europe). A few years later the United States is similarly criticised for a willingness to engage militarily in a Persian Gulf conflict, which involves its vital interests far more than does yet another European conflict in the Balkans. Odd.

Most of the truly large and populous nations of the world have rejected both the Kyoto treaty and the International Criminal Court. The list includes China, India, Russia, the United States, Pakistan, Indonesia, and many others. Interesting isn't it that we see very little expressed concern or disapproval about the choices made by any of these nations - except for the United States. Why?

It is understandable that the existence of any relatively unchallenged dominant power would be unsettling to many - our friends, enemies, and those in between. However what are the alternatives? Shall we encourage the growth of a powerful antagonist? That was the situation before 1992, but I doubt that many would wish to go back to that. The lessons of history clearly suggest that a rival will emerge soon enough anyway.

Alternatively, shall we find a way to tame the sole superpower, to constrain him as did Swift's Lilliputians with Gulliver? (I believe that is what our many critics really want.) But how can this be accomplished? Has such a thing ever happened in the recorded history of the world? It has not. Every period of world dominance or near dominance at the hands of a superpower was marked by resentment and the struggles of many to escape the consequences of that dominance. It is not in the nature of nations, large or small, to give up power where their vital interests are involved. And every champion of every contest knows that he will inevitably face a challenger, so he husbands his strength, power and independence for that day.

In the matter at hand, the most voiciferous critics of the United States are themselves now in the process of forming a political union (the EU) that will eclipse the United States in area, population, and economic power. (Our rival is at hand!) The process of European union involves the gradual surrender of national soveriginty by its members to the organs of that union. Perhaps this has distorted their vision. There is every likelihood that the process of union has iinadvertantly facilitated the resentment on the part of European nations for the necessary retention of all elements of soveriginty by the United States, - we are not a candidate for membership in the EU.

Canadians and others find it easy to criticize the United States almost as though they were citizens, while they recoil in indignation if one of us reciprocates. This is yet another indication of the skewed standards that apply to any dominant figure. It may well be that this, in an odd way, is an indication of the benign character of our dominance compared to other similarly situated powers. More may be expected of us and a relative lack of frightfulness may make us an easy mark. If so that is a good sign.

Even so, an occasional kind word would be appreciated.

a) We are far and away the planet's greatest polluter.

b) Our industries would not take too great a hit to comply with the treaty.

c) If a few of our industries did become less compatitive in the global market we would still have nearly half of the world's money and still be an economic superpower.

It's pretty much just that we are the biggest polluters. It's more important to the planet just to sign us to the treaty than almost the rest of the world's nations combined. It's not only obvious why the US took flak for this but largely justified.

Tha6t being said I wouldn't have signed the treaty, but I wouldn't have scorned it either.

I think we acted terribly in regard to Kyoto.