Europe influence seen as positive

[kirovman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413913.stm

Europe - and France in particular - are seen as benevolent forces in a world largely scornful of US influence, a poll taken in 23 countries suggests.
The survey found that, on average, 58% of people want Europe to play a bigger role than the US in world affairs.

France emerged as the single country with the best reputation abroad.

Not so suprising, but I mostly hear bad things about France from people.

French influence was opposed by a majority of people in the US alone, while its biggest supporter was its historical enemy, Germany, where some 77% felt France was a force for good.

Although 55% of US citizens felt greater European influence would be a bad thing, 34% of Americans felt the opposite - a statistic which the report's authors claim reflects deep political divisions within the US.

India appeared to be the only nation more or less equally divided over whether greater European influence would be beneficial for the world.

"What is notable here is that Europe and China, which have engaged the world primarily through economic relations - or soft power - are widely seen as having a positive influence," he said.

However, "countries that have very large militaries and have recently used them in a prominent way - the US and Russia - are more often seen as having a negative influence", he said.

Doug Miller, of GlobeScan, said the poll was worrying for Americans.

"Our survey shows that Europe's star has risen as America's has declined under the Bush administration," he said.

Opinions on this poll? Do you think France/Europe deserves this honour? Do you think the poll reflects world opinion?

 

[Sprafa]

UK isn't part of Europe.

 

[kirovman]

Depends on how you look at it.

I don't think it's part of Europe with respect to that poll.

I think the UK is part of Europe when it suits them.

 

[Calanen]

UK isn't part of Europe.

Its not physically joined to the European continent, but it is clearly part of the European Union, which is Europe.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Sure, they'd want European influence, but then Europe would still call upon the US to take care of any problem that crops up.

 

[pomegranate]

UK isn't part of Europe.

Except for adoption of the Euro, there is no manner in which the UK is not part of Europe.
It's not part of the mainland, but that doesn't make it any less a part of the continent.
If it's not part of Europe, please tell me what continent the UK is part of?

Sure, they'd want European influence, but then Europe would still call upon the US to take care of any problem that crops up.

Yeah, I remember the Spanish government on their knees begging for help with the investigation into the Madrid bombing. I also recall my government asking for the US to deploy troops into Northern Ireland to help us with that decades-long insurgency. Oh yeah, also - thanks for helping us to set up that pan-continental international economic alliance.
God, how would we have coped without America?

 

[pomegranate]

nevermind

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yeah, I remember the Spanish government on their knees begging for help with the investigation into the Madrid bombing. I also recall my government asking for the US to deploy troops into Northern Ireland to help us with that decades-long insurgency. Oh yeah, also - thanks for helping us to set up that pan-continental international economic alliance.
God, how would we have coped without America?

I mean in situations like the Balkans, Somalia, etc. Face it, America is clearly the muscle of the world. What will happen when the EU tries to negotiate its way around Iran, only to fail. Will they take care of that situation themselves? Nah, the US will do it. What about if NK invades? Will their influence get them out of that, or will they call on the US? Even then I'm not going back to the two most glaring conflicts in which the US was called upon.

 

[pomegranate]

In what manner did Europe "call upon the US to take care of" situations like those you've mentioned? The way you phrased it suggests that whenever there's a problem somewhere in the world, Europe goes running to the US to sort it out.
The US is very selective about what problems it deals with.

 

[Laivasse]

I also recall my government asking for the US to deploy troops into Northern Ireland to help us with that decades-long insurgency.

I remember that "decades long insurgency" being funded in a massive part by sympathisers in the US. Then suddenly the US gets a taste of terrorism and it's all change. This is one of the things that convinces me the US aren't acting out of any higher moral sense in their activities overseas.

It's bizarre that some people in the UK forget this and jump headlong in support of the US' War on Terror(tm), when for so long the US hindered our own.

EDIT: missed the irony in your post

 

[Recoil]

Opinions on this poll? Do you think France/Europe deserves this honour?

Yes.

Face it, America is clearly the muscle of the world.

What's the brain then...?

 

[seinfeldrules]

The way you phrased it suggests that whenever there's a problem somewhere in the world, Europe goes running to the US to sort it out.

No, but I am saying they will rely on the US to be a police force. I mean if the EU wanted to actually use this supposed influence, how about they go help deal with Sudan?

 

[pomegranate]

Okay, I appreciate the clarification... Europe would ideally have a unified military, otherwise dealing with things such as Sudan or the Balkans isn't really something that would be done by 'Europe' - European countries would be involved, but under UN or NATO auspices - because militarily, there is currently no such formal thing as 'Europe' - if you get what I'm trying to say.

Personally I would prefer that no one country (US) or group of countries (EU) decide to deal with problems. I'd prefer that the UN would be effective, decisive, and unified to deal with situations that the US normally takes on (and more).

 

[Gray Fox]

People are idiots, europe would be as bad as the US if it had more power.

(note this does not by any means mean that I approve what the US does, nor that it gives them an excuse, I still think the US foreign policy is discusting to say the least.)

 

[The Monkey]

Except for adoption of the Euro, there is no manner in which the UK is not part of Europe.
It's not part of the mainland, but that doesn't make it any less a part of the continent.
If it's not part of Europe, please tell me what continent the UK is part of?

Completely true. I don't see why brits don't call themselves european... Only 12 of europe's 50 countries use the euro, so that's no arguement...

 

[pomegranate]

Conpletely true. I don't see why brits don't call themselves european... Only 12 of europe's 50 countries use the euro, so that's no arguement...

I do call myself European, and I make a point to take other British people to task when they say they're not European.
People seem to confuse their self identity with cold hard geographical/cultural/historical fact...

 

[The Monkey]

I do call myself European, and I make a point to take other British people to task when they say they're not European.
People seem to confuse their self identity with cold hard geographical/cultural/historical fact...

Which facts? No, you don't belong to the "continent", but technical, either does Sweden, Norway and Finland. Furthermore, you have share europe's history for the past 2000 years and you culture is, as far as I know, mostly european, although here you ditters some from "europe".(Even though there is no specific european culture, but rather 50 different cultures, one for each country)

 

[mortiz]

No, but I am saying they will rely on the US to be a police force. I mean if the EU wanted to actually use this supposed influence, how about they go help deal with Sudan?

You do realize that this "U.S. police force" will be a likely cause for a lot of the problems down the road? If the U.S. goes in heavy handed all the time it causes destabilization, and when destabilization takes place bad people get into positions of power which has been proven over and over again.

No judgements can be made by Iraq yet since the U.S. still has a firm hold of it, but what about after when the U.S. leaves? I'm inclined to think it won't take long before democracy starts to crumble in Iraq.

It'll be like getting rid of one dictator at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives just to open the door for another one.

 

[InstInct1085]

Well about the topic (seems rare ),
I think that so many people think of europe as a positive force, because:
A: because of the european union, which is the worlds most succesfull effort of bringing permenant peace and cooperation between different nations.
B: because of the diversity in the EU, the things that europe does as a whole, are a result of the opinions and views of many different cultures, sure some have a stronger vote then others but it's still diverse, which in turn means it's actions has to appeal to the most types of cultures
C: as a result of B: it's not as shall we say gung-ho(sp?) about foreign affairs as the US, which seems to be appreciated too

 

[Calanen]

In what manner did Europe "call upon the US to take care of" situations like those you've mentioned? The way you phrased it suggests that whenever there's a problem somewhere in the world, Europe goes running to the US to sort it out.
The US is very selective about what problems it deals with.

WW2 ring a bell?

 

[Calanen]

No judgements can be made by Iraq yet since the U.S. still has a firm hold of it, but what about after when the U.S. leaves? I'm inclined to think it won't take long before democracy starts to crumble in Iraq.

It'll be like getting rid of one dictator at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives just to open the door for another one.

Just like happened in Japan when the USA got rid of Emperor Hirohito and Adolf Hitler in Germany? Democracy just did not last in either of those places after the US left.....

 

[CptStern]

the US is not leaving, no way will they allow a fundamentalist regime take hold in iraq ...they learned their lesson in Iran, they're not going to make the same mistake with Iraq

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Just like happened in Japan when the USA got rid of Emperor Hirohito and Adolf Hitler in Germany? Democracy just did not last in either of those places after the US left.....

Some might argue that the US never really left...


And please don't go on about WW2 and use it as precidence to prove every point about the US being saviours of the world.

That was a world war, meaning everyone was involved and noone could have done it alone. We would have fallen without the US, but similarly without Russia, we would have lost. They swallowed everything Hitler threw at them, which left the western front open for invasion.

 

[Recoil]

Democracy just did not last in either of those places after the US left.....

Hahahaha, excuse me?!

 

[The Monkey]

Hahahaha, excuse me?!

He's probablt talking about East Germany. Not that the US had anything to do with that...so actaully I'm not sure what he's talking about, and I don't think he is either.

 

[InstInct1085]

People, i liked the concept of talking about why europe's influence is seen as positive, i'd appreciate it if this didn't turn into another anti-US-ignoring-the-actual-topic thread.

Not that i have any influence whatsoever of course, but one can try.

 

[mortiz]

The USA got rid of Hitler? Last time I checked it was a joint effort involving many countries. Remember the First World War? Ask yourself how did Hitler get into power in the first place to start another world war? I can assure you it had very distinct links to what happened to Germany during WW1.

Anyway, Germany as a country lies in the centre of Europe, which is a very large area for democratic reform. No such structure exists in the middle-east or in the majority in Asia.

The U.S.A. maintains to this day a large military presence in Japan, and Japan itself is a product of when the U.S. was the sole nuclear power. Nuclear weapons just don’t scare Governments like they once did.

 

[Sprafa]

Just like happened in Japan when the USA got rid of Emperor Hirohito and Adolf Hitler in Germany? Democracy just did not last in either of those places after the US left.....

Two notes :

The Emperor wasn't at the top of the food chain. He was a PR guy in who to blame for failures.

Adolf Hitler.... hmm... I'd say Russia did that. They lost, what, 20 million ?

Either way, I've said it before, WWII isn't a subject of healthy discussion. It's over, get over it. And the Soviets won.


EDIT : the reason why I said "UK isn't part of Europe" was just to piss off the Brits/Scotts... and .. whoever else.

 

[pomegranate]

Either way, I've said it before, WWII isn't a subject of healthy discussion. It's over, get over it. And the Soviets won.

Well said.
It seems we can never have any debate about American foreign policy without someone bringing up WW2 in supposed defence. What's it going to take - are US soldiers going to be given the explicit, publicised order to rape and kill women and children, before American patriots realise that America doesn't always do the moral, benevolent thing aboard?

 

[CptStern]

the problem is that some americans see the US like this

when the reality is closer to this:

 

[Pogrom]

Just like happened in Japan when the USA got rid of Emperor Hirohito and Adolf Hitler in Germany? Democracy just did not last in either of those places after the US left.....

Those are the exceptions rather than the rule: Source

The record shows that democratic nation-building is among the most ambitious and difficult of foreign policy undertakings for the United States. Of the 16 over the past century, democracy was sustained in only 4 countries ten years after the departure of American forces. Two of these followed total defeat and surrender (in World War II) and two were in tiny countries (Grenada and Panama).

The record also reveals that unilateral nation-building by the United States has an even lower success rate perhaps because unilateralism has led to the creation of surrogate regimes and direct American administration during the interim post-conflict period. The use of interim surrogate regimes has produced a record of complete failure. No American-supported surrogate regime made the transition to democracy and only one case of direct American administration (in Japan) succeeded in ushering in democracy.

 

[Korgoth]

I say let Europe handle it, they are liked more, and are even already on that side of the globe... They should deal with it, we should worry about our house for a while, because as we are off playing nation builder for the world ours is collapsing out from under us.

 

[seinfeldrules]

the problem is that some americans see the US like this

And the problem with some foreigners is that they completely underestimate the US. While doing so, they act overwhelmingly arrogant while simultaneously accusing the US of being arrogant.