What the World Thinks of America
January 30, 2006 7:09 PM Subscribe
Poll Results: What the World Thinks of America BBC Report that polls various countries. More or less, the title describes itself adequately.
Based on Brazi's responses, I question the validity of the poll. Brazilians apparently don't think that America considers itself the only superpower who can do whatever it wants, but they're scared of America anyway.
Maybe they had a bad translator. The poll questions aren't terribly well written, and that may be the problem.
posted by JekPorkins at 7:17 PM on January 30, 2006
Maybe they had a bad translator. The poll questions aren't terribly well written, and that may be the problem.
posted by JekPorkins at 7:17 PM on January 30, 2006
"brazil." Not "brazi"
posted by JekPorkins at 7:17 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 7:17 PM on January 30, 2006
This poll was conducted in May/June 2003! It's a potentially interesting topic, I agree, but a 2 and a half year old survey isn't very relevant.
posted by matthewr at 7:18 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by matthewr at 7:18 PM on January 30, 2006
Israel is the Sally Fields of foreign nations. "They really, really love us!"
posted by stevis at 7:20 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by stevis at 7:20 PM on January 30, 2006
Brazilians apparently don't think that America considers itself the only superpower who can do whatever it wants, but they're scared of America anyway.
That's not contradictory nor does it place into question the "validity" of the poll.
As to the writing, it's British-English - their usage a little different.
posted by ryanhealy at 7:20 PM on January 30, 2006
That's not contradictory nor does it place into question the "validity" of the poll.
As to the writing, it's British-English - their usage a little different.
posted by ryanhealy at 7:20 PM on January 30, 2006
I'm sure world opinions have shifted dramatically since 2003. Not!
posted by matkline at 7:21 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by matkline at 7:21 PM on January 30, 2006
Jordan is just full of Negative Nellies.
Or at least they were, two and a half years ago, apparently.
posted by Gator at 7:21 PM on January 30, 2006
Or at least they were, two and a half years ago, apparently.
posted by Gator at 7:21 PM on January 30, 2006
JekPorkins writes "The poll questions aren't terribly well written, and that may be the problem."
No kidding. "America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world?" You can reap thorns?
And yeah, Gator. What the hell is Jordan's problem. *tsk*
posted by brundlefly at 7:23 PM on January 30, 2006
No kidding. "America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world?" You can reap thorns?
And yeah, Gator. What the hell is Jordan's problem. *tsk*
posted by brundlefly at 7:23 PM on January 30, 2006
This might be more relevant if it wasn't from almost three years ago. It's still pretty freaky...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:24 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:24 PM on January 30, 2006
1% of people think America is a better place to live than Australia.
*grins*
posted by Jimbob at 7:25 PM on January 30, 2006
*grins*
posted by Jimbob at 7:25 PM on January 30, 2006
So our best friend (at 44%) is Israel? and even the English-speaking Commonwealth countries (our allies in two world wars) have a less favourable opinion of us?
I guess the Project for a New American Century really is working out.
I'll remember that when I must hire Blackwater USA mercenaries to protect me on my next trip abroad.
posted by orthogonality at 7:26 PM on January 30, 2006
I guess the Project for a New American Century really is working out.
I'll remember that when I must hire Blackwater USA mercenaries to protect me on my next trip abroad.
posted by orthogonality at 7:26 PM on January 30, 2006
I've always figured, after Israel, that Canada probably the most pro-American country in the world. This poll seems to support that.
posted by bobo123 at 7:29 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by bobo123 at 7:29 PM on January 30, 2006
I'm sure world opinions have shifted dramatically since 2003. Not!
Yes, Sir!
posted by longsleeves at 7:30 PM on January 30, 2006
Yes, Sir!
posted by longsleeves at 7:30 PM on January 30, 2006
The reaping thorns question is pretty poetic for a survey.
posted by craven_morhead at 7:34 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by craven_morhead at 7:34 PM on January 30, 2006
Spock, that was great.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 7:42 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 7:42 PM on January 30, 2006
Inneresting link -- I can't believe I missed two of these questions. Guess I should move off-shore or burn my Teapot Dome underoos. Anyone watched the video?
posted by undule at 7:51 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by undule at 7:51 PM on January 30, 2006
Lol -- sorry must comment again. But this shit is perfect -- D'oh!
Which goes to show just how valuable polls really are . . .
posted by undule at 7:54 PM on January 30, 2006
Which goes to show just how valuable polls really are . . .
posted by undule at 7:54 PM on January 30, 2006
"America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world?" You can reap thorns?
Yes, you can. Why you'd want to is a different matter ...
posted by kaemaril at 7:57 PM on January 30, 2006
Yes, you can. Why you'd want to is a different matter ...
posted by kaemaril at 7:57 PM on January 30, 2006
I find it funny that Israel is less scared of America than America is of itself.
posted by scottreynen at 8:02 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by scottreynen at 8:02 PM on January 30, 2006
David's friend Goliath, from Foreign Policy magazine.
The rest of the world complains that American hegemony is reckless, arrogant, and insensitive. Just don’t expect them to do anything about it. The world’s guilty secret is that it enjoys the security and stability the United States provides. The world won’t admit it, but they will miss the American empire when it’s gone.
Everybody talks about the weather, Mark Twain once observed, but nobody does anything about it. The same is true of America’s role in the world. The United States is the subject of endless commentary, most of it negative, some of it poisonously hostile. Statements by foreign leaders, street demonstrations in national capitals, and much-publicized opinion polls all seem to bespeak a worldwide conviction that the United States misuses its enormous power in ways that threaten the stability of the international system. That is hardly surprising. No one loves Goliath. What is surprising is the world’s failure to respond to the United States as it did to the Goliaths of the past.
Sovereign states as powerful as the United States, and as dangerous as its critics declare it to be, were historically subject to a check on their power. Other countries banded together to block them. Revolutionary and Napoleonic France in the late 18th and early 19th century, Germany during the two world wars, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War all inspired countervailing coalitions that ultimately defeated them. Yet no such anti-American alignment has formed or shows any sign of forming today. Widespread complaints about the United States’ international role are met with an absence of concrete, effective measures to challenge, change, or restrict it.
The gap between what the world says about American power and what it fails to do about it is the single most striking feature of 21st-century international relations. The explanation for this gap is twofold. First, the charges most frequently leveled at America are false. The United States does not endanger other countries, nor does it invariably act without regard to the interests and wishes of others. Second, far from menacing the rest of the world, the United States plays a uniquely positive global role. The governments of most other countries understand that, although they have powerful reasons not to say so explicitly.
posted by loquax at 8:16 PM on January 30, 2006
The rest of the world complains that American hegemony is reckless, arrogant, and insensitive. Just don’t expect them to do anything about it. The world’s guilty secret is that it enjoys the security and stability the United States provides. The world won’t admit it, but they will miss the American empire when it’s gone.
Everybody talks about the weather, Mark Twain once observed, but nobody does anything about it. The same is true of America’s role in the world. The United States is the subject of endless commentary, most of it negative, some of it poisonously hostile. Statements by foreign leaders, street demonstrations in national capitals, and much-publicized opinion polls all seem to bespeak a worldwide conviction that the United States misuses its enormous power in ways that threaten the stability of the international system. That is hardly surprising. No one loves Goliath. What is surprising is the world’s failure to respond to the United States as it did to the Goliaths of the past.
Sovereign states as powerful as the United States, and as dangerous as its critics declare it to be, were historically subject to a check on their power. Other countries banded together to block them. Revolutionary and Napoleonic France in the late 18th and early 19th century, Germany during the two world wars, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War all inspired countervailing coalitions that ultimately defeated them. Yet no such anti-American alignment has formed or shows any sign of forming today. Widespread complaints about the United States’ international role are met with an absence of concrete, effective measures to challenge, change, or restrict it.
The gap between what the world says about American power and what it fails to do about it is the single most striking feature of 21st-century international relations. The explanation for this gap is twofold. First, the charges most frequently leveled at America are false. The United States does not endanger other countries, nor does it invariably act without regard to the interests and wishes of others. Second, far from menacing the rest of the world, the United States plays a uniquely positive global role. The governments of most other countries understand that, although they have powerful reasons not to say so explicitly.
posted by loquax at 8:16 PM on January 30, 2006
loquax: the United States does not endanger other countries?
posted by baklavabaklava at 8:40 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by baklavabaklava at 8:40 PM on January 30, 2006
baklavabaklava, no more so than any country, and far less than most, especially past world hegemons or major world powers. In fact, the US explicitly protects or has protected a variety of countries, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Israel, Germany, Greece, Britain, the USSR, and Canada. The US has liberated from foreign or domestic oppressive occupation another variety of countries, not to mention their efforts against totalitarian rule during the Cold War. Compared to other countries and empires, they have very rarely invaded or conquered for territory or wealth. They have certainly made mistakes, and they have certainly caused suffering, but they have been in a unique position within the global community during the last 50 years, and the US alone must make the decisions that balance short term success with long term peace and prosperity. As these things go, the Pax Americana since 1945 has been remarkable considering the 50 years that preceded it, and the challenges that were faced in the latter half of the 20th century.
When Britain was in a similar position, they conquered and explicitly exploited and subjugated indigenous populations. Ditto Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Dutch, the French, the Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Ottomans, the Italians, and practically any other world power you care to mention. For all the criticism the US is receiving for their current actions in Iraq, how would Russia have handled things? No need to wonder, actually, we know how they dealt with civilian Germans in WW2, and Afghans, and Chechans, and their own populations, and those of allied countries. And as the article states, the actions of previous world powers was quickly opposed and confronted by alliances of others anxious about the way in which one wielded the power they have. The same is not true of the US. These poll results look as though they could be referring to the USSR, which was explicitly opposed by Western Europe, the US, and other allied nations until their power was ultimately neutralized. Why is the same thing not happening now? Perhaps it will, in the future, but for the time being, it appears that despite the bluster, the world is quite happy having the US expend a disproportionate amount of effort, money and blood in achieving objectives that they publicly scorn, but privately appreciate. Otherwise why wouldn't Germany demand that US troops leave the country? Or Italy? Or Japan? Or South Korea? Why isn't anyone else seriously suggesting that there needs to be a military counterbalance to global US forces? Why aren't other nations banding together to patrol sea zones or separate Taiwan from China? Either they're lazy and incapable, or they trust, in a general sense, the direction of US policy and the moderate and judicious use of their power.
posted by loquax at 9:25 PM on January 30, 2006
When Britain was in a similar position, they conquered and explicitly exploited and subjugated indigenous populations. Ditto Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Dutch, the French, the Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Ottomans, the Italians, and practically any other world power you care to mention. For all the criticism the US is receiving for their current actions in Iraq, how would Russia have handled things? No need to wonder, actually, we know how they dealt with civilian Germans in WW2, and Afghans, and Chechans, and their own populations, and those of allied countries. And as the article states, the actions of previous world powers was quickly opposed and confronted by alliances of others anxious about the way in which one wielded the power they have. The same is not true of the US. These poll results look as though they could be referring to the USSR, which was explicitly opposed by Western Europe, the US, and other allied nations until their power was ultimately neutralized. Why is the same thing not happening now? Perhaps it will, in the future, but for the time being, it appears that despite the bluster, the world is quite happy having the US expend a disproportionate amount of effort, money and blood in achieving objectives that they publicly scorn, but privately appreciate. Otherwise why wouldn't Germany demand that US troops leave the country? Or Italy? Or Japan? Or South Korea? Why isn't anyone else seriously suggesting that there needs to be a military counterbalance to global US forces? Why aren't other nations banding together to patrol sea zones or separate Taiwan from China? Either they're lazy and incapable, or they trust, in a general sense, the direction of US policy and the moderate and judicious use of their power.
posted by loquax at 9:25 PM on January 30, 2006
Of course all those people think that America is a continent. Two actually. If they'd asked about the US of A the answers would have been different. Especially if they'd asked them now.
posted by kika at 9:31 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by kika at 9:31 PM on January 30, 2006
loquax, I agree that to some extents, plenty of countries are happy to have the U.S. around to "keep an eye on things", since it frees them of such commitments and they can always look the other way or act appalled when scandals arise. These are, however, governments which are granting such rights (U.S. bases, etc.), and diplomatic incidents are avoided. I'm sure this survey, though, includes Mr Tout-le-Monde and said man in the street can't worry much about what his government gets out of U.S. bases.
As for endangering other countries, as you quoted, surely Iraq is a dangerous place?
posted by baklavabaklava at 9:44 PM on January 30, 2006
As for endangering other countries, as you quoted, surely Iraq is a dangerous place?
posted by baklavabaklava at 9:44 PM on January 30, 2006
Well, I think that to say that the US "endangered" Iraq is too simplistic. The US was certainly not alone in attacking Iraq and liberating Kuwait in 1991, and they were certainly not alone in imposing sanctions and isolation until 2003. They also invaded Iraq in 2003 in a coalition of 40+ countries (with only several notable exceptions). Iraq is a dangerous place today. Is it more or less dangerous than it was in 1990? 2002? I don't know. I think that the prognosis for the country is better, and the potential exists for Iraq to be far better off as a result of US and allied intervention than without it. But as for who "endangered" Iraq, I would blame Hussein first and foremost, followed by his primary military supplier, the USSR, and his other friends and allies that ignored his oppression of his people and his military build-ups. Certainly the US could be counted among those countries for a time, as could France, Canada, Germany, the UK, and everyone else who didn't care until they were forced to. The US came around. Russia and China (and to a lesser extent, France), didn't, and had no problem with Hussein going about his business, sacrificing millions of his people in pointless wars and secret executions.
The "man on the street" (as opposed to most on metafilter, I might add), simply doesn't understand (or care about) geopolitics, history, international relations and certain realities. It's one thing to be versed in at least current events and recent history and be opposed to the US for a variety of reasons, it's quite another to not give these issues a second thought 99% of the time and give answers like these to a pollster. Why not? It's chic these days to be anti-American, in politics, culture, whatever. I'm not saying these results are meaningless, they do have the potential to influence politics and international relations, but I don't think they can be read as a knowledgeable condemnation of the US or its policies by any stretch of the imagination.
(To tell you the truth, I can't even understand half of them - what does "dangerous" mean? Koreans really think than the US is more "dangerous" than the DPRK? Jordanians think that the US is more "dangerous" than Syria? If danger means what I think it means, maybe most Jordanians and Koreans are just stupid.)
posted by loquax at 10:10 PM on January 30, 2006
The "man on the street" (as opposed to most on metafilter, I might add), simply doesn't understand (or care about) geopolitics, history, international relations and certain realities. It's one thing to be versed in at least current events and recent history and be opposed to the US for a variety of reasons, it's quite another to not give these issues a second thought 99% of the time and give answers like these to a pollster. Why not? It's chic these days to be anti-American, in politics, culture, whatever. I'm not saying these results are meaningless, they do have the potential to influence politics and international relations, but I don't think they can be read as a knowledgeable condemnation of the US or its policies by any stretch of the imagination.
(To tell you the truth, I can't even understand half of them - what does "dangerous" mean? Koreans really think than the US is more "dangerous" than the DPRK? Jordanians think that the US is more "dangerous" than Syria? If danger means what I think it means, maybe most Jordanians and Koreans are just stupid.)
posted by loquax at 10:10 PM on January 30, 2006
undule writes "Inneresting link -- I can't believe I missed two of these questions. Guess I should move off-shore or burn my Teapot Dome underoos. Anyone watched the video?"
10/10
posted by orthogonality at 10:18 PM on January 30, 2006
10/10
posted by orthogonality at 10:18 PM on January 30, 2006
I am brazilian, and that "think that America considers itself the only superpower who can do whatever it wants" percentage striked me as well. That item was certainly understood as "america is the only superpower and so can do whatever it wants"... there is no other explanation for this disparity.
If you have doubts about this, check the answer on the percentage of people who think America is arrogant, which is almost the same question.
And yeah, I already knew Brazil was becoming more anti-american than is healthy for us... specially since this is quite hypocrite in many aspects (like culture... brazilians consume lots of american culture, and still refer to it as bad)
posted by qvantamon at 7:13 AM on January 31, 2006
If you have doubts about this, check the answer on the percentage of people who think America is arrogant, which is almost the same question.
And yeah, I already knew Brazil was becoming more anti-american than is healthy for us... specially since this is quite hypocrite in many aspects (like culture... brazilians consume lots of american culture, and still refer to it as bad)
posted by qvantamon at 7:13 AM on January 31, 2006
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Brazil thinks we’re all about (money and) sex? Brazil!?
posted by Smedleyman at 10:55 AM on January 31, 2006
posted by Smedleyman at 10:55 AM on January 31, 2006
« Older The Worst-case Scenario | What Would Jimmy Carter Do? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by brundlefly at 7:17 PM on January 30, 2006