Israel is an issue where the US stand very alone, resolutions in the UN normally go US, Israel, UK (the 51st state) against everybody else. This has been like that for decades.
Yeah, and I think that's a large portion of the problem. With Israel being a hot issue lately, it's the basis (IMO) of a very large portion of the anti-US resentment. If the US were to adopt a strong stance condemning Israel's military actions, for example, I think a good deal of nations (primarily Arab and Muslim ones, but a few others as well) would forgive any other disagreements and welcome it as "an ally in the fight against Zionism" or something of that sort. Israel is for many countries right now (and to varying degrees for the past few decades) really the only important issue; US support of Israel makes the US an enemy, while US condemnation of Israel would quickly make it many friends in certain parts of the world, regardless of any other disagreements.
Currently, there are millions of people dying of AIDS in Africa. The currently standing proposal of the US is to offer a $1 billion credit to buy AIDS drugs. A loan that these countries could not repay and therefore simple refuted. The US is the most adamant supporter of drug companies patent rights that prevent the manufacture of generic drugs.
Well, that's because the drug companies are laregly in the US. Even if supporting the drug companies were the right thing to do (I'm not saying it is; I haven't studied the issue sufficiently to decide either way), I'd expect that the US would be the only one doing so; no other countries have a significant financial interest at stake, so they have no reason to support the drug companies. So I don't think the simple fact that the US supports them while the majority of the world opposes them proves anything; that's simply how you'd expect things to be if each country were acting in its own self-interest.
The Kyoto treaty is not just a "pet treaty" of Europeans. It has strong support in Japan. Countries such as the Maledives see it as a life or death issue. If the water level rises only a few feet, that country would disappear.
Well yes; it's main a European concern, but there are a few other countries who strongly support it (Japan and Canada often side with the Europeans in international affairs). I see both problems and good things in the Kyoto protocol; I think both sides of the issue are at least partially wrong. The Bush administration is wrong to completely scrap it; the unconditional defenders of the treaty are wrong in asserting that it has no problems that need to be solved before adoption.
In a lot of ways the US behaves like a rogue nation. For instance the missle attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, on the bases of suspicions that turn out completely unfounded.
Well, I personally opposed the attacks on both Sudan and Afghanistan, regardless of whether they were well-founded or not. From what I've read there's strong doubts about whether anything illicit was being made at the Sudanese plant, though there are conflicting reports (even from non-US groups), while most seem to agree that the Afghanistani strikes were actually against terrorist camps, as was claimed. Either way, I don't think they were a good idea. They certainly didn't do enough military damage to significantly hamper any terrorist operations, and as far as a message, they did more to incite anti-American feeling than to deter terrorism, since the US was clearly not prepared to back up their threats with full-scale assaults in foreign countries (or with anything more than they did really; it was clear that this was a one-time strike, and everyone was free to resume whatever they were doing previously).
A good read is also a recent ReWired article. The expressed feelings in there, by the way, are not fringe opions, but common attitudes all over the world.
Yeah, I'm fairly aware of opinions of Americans in other countries. Half my family is Greek, and I visit there quite often, and there's fairly open anti-American sentiment there. While some of it is justified, a lot of it isn't. For example, Greeks mostly are angry at the United States because of its perceived support of Turkey; while the US does support Turkey as part of NATO, it also supports Greece quite a bit (also as part of NATO, as well as lingering Marshall Plan type programs), and generally tries to remain neutral. This in many cases is the cause of problems - this attempt at neutrality leads to the Turks thinking the US is too pro-Greek, and the Greeks thinking the US is too pro-Turk, and then everyone ends up hating the US. Generally with a country as powerful as the US, where it's clear that it can do a lot of things, many people won't be happy unless it does everything they think should be done. Frankly, I don't think most Greeks would be happy with the US unless it invaded Cyprus and expelled the Turks from the island, and possibly from a few other disputed Aegean islands for good measure (and maybe some of Asia Minor too.)
Anyway that long Greece side-rant was just an example of anti-American opinions I've perceived. In my experience many foreigners have many of the same faults they criticize Americans for; it's just that the US is the superpower so a convenient target. If you take a look at things, the Europeans and others are quite intransigent and rather arrogant on a good deal of issues (stuff like running Aerobus as a cartel, tit for tat trade disputes, etc.).
So my main point is that I agree that the US is often at fault, and certainly neither the country nor its citizens are perfect. However, I'd caution against unconditionally taking the other side in arguments; Europeans, Japanese, Arabs, Israelis, Africans, South Americans, etc., all have significant faults as well, though they might not come up as often. But I guarantee you that if someone else, say France, were the current world superpower, they'd be the ones bearing the brunt of everyone's disdain rather than the US.
[ Parent ]