Anti-Americanism: Myth and Reality


Written by S.G. Jilanee • Cover Stories • January 2011

Once upon a time anti-Americanism was attributed to envy. Americans claimed that other nations were jealous of their resources, wealth, power and success. But that was between states. The common people were not concerned with what the U.S. had and what it was doing.

Today, the situation is different. In the internet age people across the world know all about U.S. activities in various fields, -from global warming, unwinnable wars, bullying its allies, to its blatant disregard for international law and ethical behavior. Others, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, have been direct victims of U.S. brutalities. Therefore, whereas the former dislike America, the latter hate it intensely. For example, even though America and Britain are hitched in a special relationship, yet, when George Bush visited U.K. there was such a wave of angry protest that he had to travel almost in a capsule to meet the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

Even in America’s next door neighbor, Canada, Carolyn Parrish, a member of the Parliament for the ruling party once spoke on television saying: “Damn Americans. I hate those bastards.” (Nicolas D. Kristof, Losses before bullets fly; New York Times, March 7, 2003)

In fact, a common thread of anti-Americanism runs from Japan across the Middle East to South America. Apparently it is an irony, considering America’s worldwide “philanthropy.” It rushes aid to wherever in the world there is a natural calamity - earthquake, flood famine, et al. In normal times it gives oodles of economic and military assistance to many countries.

Pakistan offers an instant example. America sent large quantities of relief goods with men and helicopters, during the recent devastating flood and contributed heavily in cash for the rehabilitation of the affected people. Earlier, after the earthquake in Azad Kashmir also, the U.S. had poured similar assistance.

Besides, heavy doses of U.S. military and economic assistance sustain Pakistan’s defense capability and keep life going. As Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, Syeda Abida Hussein affirmed in a TV talk show, “Without American assistance we would starve to death.”

And yet, the PEW Global Attitudes Project found only 17% of Pakistanis having a favorable view of the U.S. The survey was undertaken perhaps in view of the recent realization by the U.S. administration that people in Pakistan are also worthy of their attention that called for a change in approach. So long, for six decades, America dealt only with the rulers, whether absolute monarchs or military dictators, while trumpeting its love and support for freedom and democracy.

The reason for this chameleon faced attitude was summed up by Guardian’s Gary Younge as, “The US supports democracy when democracy supports the US.” (Ouster of Democracy; 30 March 2004). There are think tanks galore in the United States churning out pompous findings on practically everything under the sun, but they do not appear to have diagnosed the root of this congenital affliction among Americans. Robert Fisk therefore derisively calls them “Tink thanks.”

Perhaps this mindset, which Americans proudly call “exceptionalism,” has been bred by the arrogance of power. With so much power, -human resources, money, technology and lethal arms, they claim to be a distinct species, who the laws of nations do not apply to. For the same reason they are impatient people seeking quick results; let the means be damned. In the first Iraq war, for example, their overwhelming force crushed the enemy swiftly and the forces went home with flying colors.

In the second Iraq war of 2003-2008, the U.S. proudly proclaimed a strategy of shock and awe. But, when the harrowing tales of wanton massacre and inhuman brutalities sent shock waves across the world, it changed the strategy to “winning the hearts and minds” of the Muslims. Karen Hughes was appointed as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy with the rank of ambassador. Outwardly her task was to change “foreigners’ perceptions about America.” But actually it was focused on Muslims. So, she went on a “listening tour” from the Middle East and Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and Indonesia.

How many hearts and minds she won is not known, but Pakistan’s president Gen. Musharraf went on record as having lost his soul to Hughes’ irresistible lure so as to decorate her with a civil award.

With the war going badly in Afghanistan, the United States realized that Pakistan’s active and wholehearted support was basic for making any meaningful headway. So, it tried the goad with the government and the army. But the usual lubricant of dollars could achieve only so much. In the operations in Swat and South Waziristan Pakistan lost more soldiers and officers than the U.S. had in nine years in Afghanistan.

The army therefore has not displayed the same alacrity in its response to repeated U.S. demands to march into North Waziristan. Another factor behind Gen. Kayani’s reluctance is the need for the same kind of full popular backing for North Waziristan operation as in the case of Swat.

Ergo, the sudden emphasis on winning the hearts and minds of the Pakistanis! After the illuminating PEW report, President Obama promptly chose Farah Pundith, a Muslim Kashmiri American, for the job. In contrast to Karen Hughes, Pundith works quietly, worming her way like a virus into the hearts and minds of susceptible Muslims. At the same time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the new U.S. ambassador Cameron Munter are going gaga about the newly discovered value of Pakistani hearts and minds and the need to win them.

However, it is not that Americans don’t know how hatred can be turned into love. But, they do not care because, their basic philosophy is “Oderint um metuant,” -a saying of Emperor Caligula that translates, roughly, as “let them hate as long as they fear.” Therefore, even when forced by circumstances, they would rather go out “buying” hearts and minds because it can give immediate results, rather than “winning” which would involve a lengthy process.

Therefore, dollars are flowing into Pakistan to buy support from newspapers, columnists and politicians for America’s crusade against al Qaeda and Taliban. However, discerning people are wary. In view of the frequent drone attacks mercilessly killing innocent Pakistanis, they suspect American motives behind the claim of American officials about a new-found love for the people of Pakistani. They also argue that this sudden surge of passion is calibrated to America’s victory in the war it is waging.

As soon as the war is won, Pakistan will cease to have any strategic relevance for America and will be discarded just as it happened after the Soviet army retreated from Afghanistan. Therefore, if there was any genuine desire to cultivate enduring friendship with Pakistani people, then the U.S. should have opened its gates for Pakistani exports. Instead it gives cash doles and supplies arms to the military.

But American policy is guided solely by blind self-interest. There is nothing altruistic behind it. Because Pakistan does not have any usefulness for U.S. interests in the long term, the Am-Pak romance has never been constant. By contrast America treats India with respect and its presidents ritually make a pilgrimage to India.

Anti-American feelings in Pakistan are therefore a reality that should surprise nobody, least of all the U.S. administration.