What The World Thinks of America (BBC program)

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Mmh, Thomas.
Migration between two neighbouring countries is mostly more balanced than any other, I suppose.

I think you suppose wrongly. Between neighbor countries you can expect more migrants in either direction, but there's no reason to expect a lower difference between the number of migrants in one direction and the number of migrants in the other direction. This difference is what reflects the relative attractiveness of countries.

Quote:

Considering, how many Germans stay how long per year on vacancies in France ("data where people who have carefully evaluated the alternatives make a choice they have a personal stake in") and the everywhere throughout Germany to be seen efforts and results of the "French-German-friendship-organisations", this may have been of some influence as well.

Certainly! I'd love to see data on how many Germans vacation in France vs. in America, how expensise the vacations are, and the efforts Germans make to maintain the French-German-friendship organizations vs. the German-American friendship organizations. Do you have any?

0 Replies

Well, by pure change I just saw them printed ... two hours ago in the university library.

But I can't remember them (looked up something completely different) and don't think, I'll find them easily again Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, by pure change I just saw them printed ... two hours ago in the university library.

But I can't remember them (looked up something completely different) and don't think, I'll find them easily again

Nice! Let me make a prediction before you post it. I believe that more Germans spend their vacations in the US, and they devote more effort to their friendship organizations, if -- and that's a big if! -- you control for differences in distance and size. This could be done by also considering the respective numbers for German-Polish relations or German-Canadian relations etc. On reflection, maybe this would get awfully technical. I'd still be interested in some ballpark figure, though.

0 Replies

Walter,

I think we all agree on the high level of friendship and mutual regard that now exists between Germany and France. Where perhaps we may disagree is on what that may imply for mutual regard and relations between the European powers and America.

My point is that the significance of what we are seeing is not the sudden "unlovableness" of America in European eyes, but rather the result of the disappearance of the forces that united us to Western Europe during the Cold War, and to France during WWI and WWII. Our national interests and aspirations have diverged. France and Germany have chosen to attempt to lead a continent in opposition to the offshore alternative to their leadership represented by the United States. This should surprise no one. France and Germany are in this acting just as did Louis IV, Napoleon I & III, Friedrich the Great, Bismark, Wilhelm I and others did in earlier times.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

France and Germany have chosen to attempt to lead a continent in opposition to the offshore alternative to their leadership represented by the United States. This should surprise no one. France and Germany are in this acting just as did Louis IV, Napoleon I & III, Friedrich the Great, Bismark, Wilhelm I and others did in earlier times.

Two questions out of curiosity: One, in which media, if any, do you follow the political debate in Germany and France? Two, what do you see as the uniting feature that connects Louis IV, Napoleon I & III, Friedrich the Great, Bismark, Wilhelm I? I'm asking because the Germany you describe bears no resemblance to the Germany I'm living in, and because I see nothing but differences between the heads of state that you list.

(PS: Am I correct in assuming you talk about Louis XIV, not Louis IV?)

0 Replies

I volunteer to emigrate..Pick Me..Pick Me..... Very Happy

Oh, all I ask for is a professorship at University of Erlangen, and a cute Turkish girlfriend!

0 Replies

Thomas,

Yes I meant Louis XIV.

The only European news source I read regularly is "The Economist".

The uniting feature among the leaders I cited was an intense desire and ambition to magnify the role of their states in the world. The many differences are not relevant to my point.

I don't think I offered any description of Germany at all. I readily concede that neither it nor France are particularly similar to what they were in the earlier periods.

However, in their self professed intent to occupy the leadership role in the politics of continental Europe, they are indeed identical to the leaders I cited. Further that this ambition would lead inexorably to a rivalry with alternative Western powers (the British Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries, America today) is a direct consequence of that fact.

0 Replies

hobitbob

If you are not looking for a chair in Erlangen and a Junior Professor would do ...
(Nevertheless, a cute Turkish girlfriend is certainly easier Laughing

)

george

Do I understand you correctly that you think the USA to be "the offshore leader of Europe"?

Besides that I join Thomas' questions, I think, you assembeld a number of historic persons (and I wonder, whom you left out why), which are really seen very differently in their aims, attitudes, politics, ... .

0 Replies

Walter,

No, not "offshore leader of Europe". However, perhaps a bit like the British Empire in relation to the principal continental powers of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. There is a natural difference in points of view there and perhaps a natural rivalry as well.

Francis I, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and Charles DuGaule were all very different in their characters and priorities, but alike in their desire for the prominence if France in Europe.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Francis I, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and Charles DuGaule were all very different in their characters and priorities, but alike in their desire for the prominence if France in Europe.

Ah! Now you're leaving out Bismarck. See, it does make a big difference how you increase your country's influence in the world. Bismarck tried, with great success, to gain influence for Germany by being an honest broker between other nation's interests. Louis XIV tried to do it by conquering territory from France's neighbors.

The difference is, Bismarck understood -- like Clinton and Bush the elder, only better -- that international politics can be a positive-sum game that works for the good of everyone. On the other hand Louis XIV -- like George Bush the younger, only worse -- played a negative sum game at which the world as a whole lost, but France was individually better off.

My impression is that the Europeans' current beef with America is not that it's pursuing its own advantage. It's that America has switched from pursuing it with positive-sum games to pursuing it with negative-sum games.

0 Replies

Thomas,

OK now I understand what you were getting at. However the distinction you are making does not bear on the point I advanced. Namely that the desire for leadership in Europe itself on the part of France and Germany is sufficient explanation for the growing differences in our world views and attitudes.

You are advancing a different argument, namely that had George Bush been more like Bismark and less like Louis XIV (i.e. more interested in positive-sum outcomes) we would be the most popular country in Germany.

I agree with you that this aspect of Bush's behavior has likely added to the attitude problem we face. However I consider it naive in the extreme to suppose that better manners and a softer touch could have prevented the fundamental drift in our world views from occurring.

What were the "positive-sum" aspects to Clinton's policies? I believe he fecklessly allowed small problems to grow unabated, wasting an enormous opportunity for us all. For example the "peace" deal he worked out with Barak was an obvious absurdity that would have created about 12 Bantustands in the West Bank, each completely surrounded by Israeli territory, and with no air or water rights to boot. It had had no chance of acceptance by the Palestinians or anyone, and very likely contributed to the real problems we face today. All form and no substance.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

My point is that the significance of what we are seeing is not the sudden "unlovableness" of America in European eyes, but rather the result of the disappearance of the forces that united us to Western Europe during the Cold War

That sounds better in theory than when you look back at the actual development of patterns such as those shown in the poll. If its the end of the Cold War that did it, one would expect a gradula slide since 1990. Instead, we've seen a quite sudden deterioration in the past two years. The poll mentions that, "in 1996 64% called the US the most reliable, [..] In 2003, 28%". If it were a natural, gradual development after the Cold War, you would have seen at least a slightly lowe figure already back in '96. Instead, Bill Clinton, his administration and the US he led was wildly popular among the European mainstream. Madeleine Albright, though feared by fellow foreign ministers, is much admired here, if you leave aside the far-leftists.

France, of course, has had a problem with American culture for years already - an identity problem - the indignant debate about the "Americanisation" of French culture's been frontpage material for a decade. But (West-)Germans have been among the most stoically loyal to their US protectors. And just two years ago, on 9/11, sympathy here for America was absolutely overwhelming and emotional - from my office window I saw how everyone stood still on the street for a minute of silence, mid-afternoon.

Perhaps you are right in identifying a long-term inevitability of diverging paths, as interests slowly grow apart in the post Cold War era. But the sudden drop in trust and sympathy in the US - and specifically the US government - goes far beyond that. The long-term trend may have created the potential for such a drop - its the Bush administration's policies that have precipitated it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

As a matter of principle, I don't like to rely on surveys for determining which countries people prefer over others. Talk is cheap, especially talk to pollsters. Therefore I prefer data where people who have carefully evaluated the alternatives make a choice they have a personal stake in. Of course, I'm talking about immigrants and emigrants. So I consulted Germany's "Statistical Yearbook" for 2001 about data on migration between the countries in question. As it turns out, there is considerable net migration from Germany to the United States: Germans migrating to America outnumber Americans migrating to Germany by several thousands a year. Migration between France and Germany, on the other hand, is almost perfectly balanced. Basically this has been so for as long as Germany's statisticians have data.

I have two rather simple problems with this position.

One, the poll (and this thread) are about what Europeans / Germans think of America. Yes, the 80% like French people, 60% like Americans bit is a bit silly. But the other data - who do you think your country can rely on, who do you consider the most important partner, are straightforward enough.

Emigration says nothing about this. Emigration is not necessarily about liking a country, or liking a people. Emigration is about seeing opportunities for personal advancement. A better job. A job, period. Living with your new bf/gf. For the overwhelming majority of emigrants, none of the primary motivations concern trust or liking for the other country, though an acute dislike might stop you, of course.

Two is where you use net migration figures rather than out-migration totals. If you are wondering who (or which countries) the Germans trust or like, and you insist on looking at emigration as an indicator, then surely the only relevant figure is how many Germans decide to emigrate to where. How many of others, in turn, migrate to Germany, says nothing about the matter. Obviously, total outmigration to France will be higher than to the US. Obviously, this has a lot to do with distance (and paperwork), too, as you point out. So its impossible to get a workable number on this.

I would just leave emigration out of it, really. Hey, I know someone who emigrated to Holland - and she sure didnt do that because she thought Holland was an important partner to the US, or could be relied on in times of trouble - or even out of a particular liking for the Dutch, overall Razz

0 Replies

Immigration usually has to do with individual convenience and not national ideologies.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

hobitbob

If you are not looking for a chair in Erlangen and a Junior Professor would do ...
(Nevertheless, a cute Turkish girlfriend is certainly easier )

Heck.. I would take a part time lecturer slot...and my ex was many things, but certainly not easy! Wink

Her four brothers were pretty tough!

0 Replies

Nimh,

I wouldn't argue with your analysis. (However, I believe the U.S. resistence to the Kyoto and ICC treaties were also significant, and they long predated 9/11). Perhaps the key point now is that what is lost is lost and not likely to return -- a very significant fact as we contemplate the decades ahead.

My view is that even before the 'precipitous drop' the underlying differences in the worldviews of Europeans and Americans were sufficiently great to make the rupture dependent only on whatever stress next appeared. In a word, the cost of continued European affection had already become too high.

I also believe the relationship of the British Empire to whatever power claimed to dominate continental Europe during the 17th through the 19th centuries, may have some illustrative qualities for the evolving relationship between the U.S. and France/Germany - if they are successful in dominating a stronger EU, an outcome which I don't consider to be inevitable.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

...France/Germany - if they are successful in dominating a stronger EU, an outcome which I don't consider to be inevitable.

I don't even see it as particularly likely. Too many people and cultures still value strength while France and Germany seem to want to convince people that you win by showing weakness at every turn.

I suspect that people, even Europeans :wink: are too smart for that. (Of course, I could be wrong about how smart most people are.)

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Too many people and cultures still value strength while France and Germany seem to want to convince people that you win by showing weakness at every turn.

Yes, that's what both nations are known for.

0 Replies

wasted irony, Valter . . .

0 Replies

I don't see any need for this thread to degenerate into particular attacks on France and Germany any more than the the United States. While the subject of the thread itself implies some criticism of the U.S., it doesn't require us to throw stones.

The sad fact is that for some time now the individual concepts of their self-interests on the part of France particularly and Germany lately have diverged from those of the United States. It is often suggested that this is a result of the policies and bad manners of President Bush. However, given that the roots of this divergence were quite visible before the start of the current administration, I reject that notion.

I have never been able to fully understand the long-standing crankiness of France with respect to the NATO alliance and her relations with the United States. I have met people who are oddly unable to forgive others for doing them a needed favor, and have sometimes speculated this could be a part of the odd surliness of France towards us that has been manifest ever since WWII. France submitted to Hitler in WWII, sat out the war, and then attempted to reclaim her empire in North Africa and Asia as though nothing had happened. The U.S. did nothing to help France in this endeavor, and indeed was at the time putting great pressure (and with far less resistance) on the British to divest itself of its empire. Since then France has only rarely resisted an opportunity to stick her finger in our eye. Many factors in the behavior of France with respect to the United States, and as well towards Britain, suggest that they feel they have some old scores to settle with us. I don't know what they may be.

It is, in my view, unfortunate that Germany has chosen to closely ally herself with France in the leading the EU to a position of rivalry with the U.S. Unfortunate, but quite understandable, given the pre-existing attitude of the French.

I believe these are the essential facts which underly the national policies and professed national objectives which have set the stage for this divergence of interests and world views. This is the context in which the public attitudes measures in the polls have expressed. While it may suit the purposes of some to declare it a result of the recent bad behavior of the United States, the readily observable basic facts of the matter very strongly suggest otherwise.

0 Replies

What The World Thinks of America (BBC program)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know