In recent decades, unfortunately, America has been leaning away from its core values that set it apart from the old imperialist, colonialist Europe. Americans have passed over Thomas Paine’s statement: “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all humankind.”

America’s popularity is rooted among people who should matter. There are only two groups who disapprove of American methodology in foreign policy: dictators and imperialist competitors.

The discord between the American foreign policy approach and European economic interests around the world goes back to the early 1900s. America as a young freedom-loving country became a problem for the old imperialist Europe. [1]

Many European politicians, either in local or EU positions, have repeatedly spoken of their disapproval of some American foreign polices. These very Europeans have also indicated, in veiled and well-spun ways, that their economic interests are more important than human rights of people in other parts of the world, and that they will not support the Iranians’ popular movement for democracy because of their own economic interests.

Their problem has not been a noble humanitarian cause such as anti-war or anti-violence, but short term economic interests which would be jeopardized by America’s foreign policy of, for instance, supporting the democratic movements in Iran. The most important foreign policy for Western European governments has always been keeping the United States under their tutelage in order to continue profiteering - at the whim of third world dictators.

By contrast, most Eastern European governments and their people wholeheartedly approve of the same policies that the West Europeans disapprove of for the U.S. They are still aware that their freedom and democracy were made possible only through that very unpopular American foreign policy in the 1980s.

The Central Asian countries fall into the same category. Their soveriegnty was restored to them thanks to the unpopular foreign policies of the unpopular American president, Ronald Reagan. Russia’s objective is to find a way to reannex these places.

The Middle East has been suffering from a post-imperialist syndrome. After the fall of The Ottoman Empire, the region was cut up and countries created, disregarding the nations and their historical, georgraphical, ethnic and religious backgrounds. To spite Gandhi. and India’s independence movement, the British, with the commodious assistance of Mohammad-Ali Jinah, created Pakistan and established a country comprised of the most radical fanatic Moslems, perhaps deliberately leaving Kashmir as an open wound.

There was also Communist Russia, which had the goal of taking over the world, from their backyard to their south. The cold war created in the Middle East strong animosities, and unleashed unsavory characters and movements. Asians are entitled to feel that United States has been their only protector against the never-ending Russian aggression, provocation and meddling: Asians trust the United States more than Europe or Russia.

Europe’s economic prosperity largely depends on other countries’ natural resources; Western Europe therefore frowns upon the democratic movements that the U.S. encourages as weapons against terrorism - hence the bone of contention.

America’s constant humanitarian support, be it through tens of billions of dollars in financial aid, food, schools or medical relief, has been openly recognized by most African nations who respect the U.S. for it. There are only a handful of African dictators who will always reject America, no matter who is president.

As a Western superpower, the U.S. is now paying the price for all the mistakes that were made and all the crimes that were committed by European imperialism; it is now being scapegoated by the blame-America crowd, and ‘allies’ are happily allowing the U.S. to continue being the fall guy.

The easy diplomacy of go-along-to-get-along-no-matter-what-the-consequence seems to be the mode of the day.


[1] Ambassador George McGhee has written about the British annoyance at American support for Iran in 1952, in his book, Envoy to the Middle World. Also gravely critical of the British and Russian’s subdivision of Iran was W. Morgan Shuster.

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Recent Articles by
receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

en

Comment on this item

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Gatestone Institute greatly appreciates your comments. The editors reserve the right, however, not to publish comments containing: incitement to violence, profanity, or any broad-brush slurring of any race, ethnic group or religion. Gatestone also reserves the right to edit comments for length, clarity and grammar. All thoughtful suggestions and analyses will be gratefully considered. Commenters' email addresses will not be displayed publicly. Gatestone regrets that, because of the increasingly great volume of traffic, we are not able to publish them all.