The Attitudes of Outsiders
The United States is seen as both a model country on the international scene as well as a sinister imperialist nation. The Middle East has its share of haters and lover of America. Most of what has been done in the Middle East by the American government has be done for the sake Democracy. At least that is what has been stated from the White House. But what has the response been from the rank and file of Middle Eastern Society? Has it been positive and full of love; or has it been negative and hateful?
Human behavior can be mysterious. The reasons why humans strive against and cooperate with one another are very involved. Different cultures can make cooperation amongst people groups complicated. The intricacies of cultures can bar people from harmonious cooperation. At the root of cooperation is the issue of will. Then there are questions that follow. What keeps ill will alive? What causes good will between cultures.
A thorough look at the U.S. and Middle Eastern relations is a good way of examining this issue. Culturally, the Middle Eastern and northern African countries stand isolated from the West as countries founded and operated on Islamic principles. In speaking of the West we refer to the United States and the countries of the European Union. Under current status quo the “West” are the power brokers of the world. Middle Eastern countries, although at several strategic disadvantages, do not necessarily placate the Western countries by immediately bowing to their will.
Most of them will see the Western countries as invaders who come to destroy their way of life. In their eyes, the United States the primary harbinger of such a threat. It stands as a symbol of Western ideology and thought. Talk of “democracy” is fodder meant to cushion the more harsh intention of a complete take over. Hence the reason insurgents arise from amongst the very population that receives humanitarian aid from United States and other power brokers in the earth. Perception can breed contempt regardless of the intentions of those on the receiving end of the hostility.
The question is: what are the hostiles looking to protect? Are their perceptions rooted in truth or are they planted in lies and deception. The factor needing to be analyzed is the cultural position of the United States. Some scholars have argued that the U.S. stands in precarious position in regard to how it is viewed in the Arab world because of histories of hostility. Although, the only attack on the Middle East out of America was its military campaign against Iraq, U.S. and Middle Eastern relations have been strained. In 1991 Saddam Hussein attacked strategic oil reserves in Kuwait, a small country neighboring Iraq. The United States saw this as a preemptive move to gain an upper hand against Israel and attacked them. The result: the United States one and the Middle East zero.
That conflict went beyond the cliché accusation “America is always sticking its nose in other peoples’ business,” to America went and spilled blood for oil. This sentiment was spawned in the Arab world abroad. Since that particular conflict the intentions of America in the Middle East have always been questioned. Accusers have brought up the oil fields in Kuwait since Saddam was repelled from them. It can be assumed that most of the Arab world holds the view that America should not be involved in these issues.
The hottest ticket on the item of issues is not necessarily cultural but both religious and political: and that is Israel. Most of the Arab world supports a fully-vested Palestinian state. Israel stands in the way of that citing border security issues. Are there perceptions of America’s ill will based in truth?
All countries have an agenda. America is not in a realm outside of that reality. So whenever Americans are involved in a conflict or humanitarian aid project the questions must be asked; why are they here or over there? People in the Middle East as well as their relative, American-born, United States citizens are asking these questions and some of them highly anticipate a coming clash with Americans; while others seek peace with a country that they see as opposed to them. Some could argue that that is a sentiment based solely in America’s involvement and support of Israel.
For this reason America needs to continue in overhauling its social image to the world. Work is being done; but how do we get there from here. Appearing weak and apologetic works again
There are different interpretations for America’s involvement in foreign affairs. Some argue that benevolence and goodness are the motives behind America’s involvement of other countries. Others argue that the United States military is used as a hammer or threatening force that helps to further capital interest overseas. In these cases, some say, money is the motive. Most scholars take an approach toward “realism” in that they support the “self-interest” interpretation: “Functioning in a hostile environment, countries are perceived by realists as being primarily concerned with defining and protecting the countries interests.” Payne (p.3)
This idea is not lost on the people who bear the brunt of the dictates of the American government: a country’s citizens.
America is the uncontested super power of the world; hated by some loved by many. Countries will respond differently to American foreign aid. Their response will depend on the general consensus of that country. American foreign aid offered to Israel will more often than not be seen as a hand from a friend. This reality is born out of America’s history as a neighbor that helped to establish modern Israel and continues to pledge support to Israel. Conversely, American humanitarian aid sent to North Korea may be thought of as a slight of hand.
So a country will respond based on what the people in an area may have truly experience at the hand of Americans or what has been portrayed to them by their governments or sponsoring countries.
One important note to make is that attitudes toward America will shift with changes in regime. This is not a lost phenomenon on watchful scholars: “let’s change the government, and
the policies, and see ‘what they think of us’ then.” Gitlin (p.16)
“Hate” is a strong word but it is a real sentiment for some internationals although much foreign aid goes to those same countries. Scholars argue that much of the contradiction in feelings and material aid stand as a horrible harbinger for a takeover. “Increasing foreign aid to countries threatened by fundamentalism may marginally keep economies afloat, but it is also likely to heighten the appeals of antigovernment movements that the United States sponsors crony and corrupt governments.” This is the case amongst the populace in many foreign countries. The more money the more hatred flows because of the sentiment that any money sent in by America is meant to further its own self –interests at the expense of the very people that was receiving the money. In general, American foreign aid is bad news to the Muslim fundamentalist in the Middle East.
One could argue that much of the hatred has to do with America’s involvement with and support of Israel. Immediately after the 9/11 catastrophe in New York City a video was released specifically stating a demand for America to get out of Israel. Some Palestinian students view America’s support of Israel is a direct affront to their very being. In September of 2011 the United States blocked a move by the Palestinian states to be recognized as a U.N. participant. This caused a flare of bad sentiment among pro-Palestinian individuals. The Mulsim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda are all vehemently anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. This block did not paint settle the already fragile relationship between the new regime in the Middle East and northern Africa.
Hosni Mubarak, former leader of Egypt perhaps expressed Middle Eastern sentiment toward American leadership and demands for more democratic processes. Before he actually stepped down during the Arab spring he stated that Obama did not understand Egyptian culture. The statement was made in response to a question asked of him by a news correspondent. His answer reflects the notion that American foreign policy is often based on misguided concepts and hope rather than on concrete facts and well-placed decisions based on those facts. It represents an assumption of naivety.
The question behind this notion is: if America is that ignorant then does she have any business handling or meddling in such affairs? That is a question that begs to be answered in the midst of a hushed oil crisis and economic meltdown and governmental shift all across the globe. America acting in its own self-interests seemed to intervene on behalf of the people of Egypt. This was an open attempt to help stabilize a terribly unstable location on the globe. Although the sentiment in Egypt, at that time, was more a benign reproach toward perceived American ignorance than a paranoid hatred of its involvement, this was still a polite way to say “get lost.”
Then there is Iran; another pro-Palestinian state. They have positioned themselves as the Middle Eastern fall guy against the American government. Regardless of any well-intended actions by the American government, the Iranian regime will cause those acts to look heinously evil and a move to further the drive to undergird Israel.
As the current American government or regime has handled the current crisis in the Middle East as an extension of the policies of its predecessor regime, they have sought to smooth things over. Has this been the correct response? It seems in Egypt, no. President Obama stated that the current Egyptian government is neither friend not ally. Whether or not that statement was calculated is irrelevant; Egyptians can further the assumption that America, though benevolent and well-intentioned is out of touch with the realities of the Muslim world.
On the other hand, America’s support of the cause of preserving Israel causes much strain in diplomatic relations with the Middle East. How much of this is cultural if terrorist attacks are being carried out in the West as statements against the so-called Israeli occupation in Palestine? Al-Qaeda tells all. They leave no questions of their intentions of dislodging the United States from the Middle East as a precursor to dealing directly with Israel. That is both political and religious. It’s political as attacks make statements for Palestine. It’s religious in that terrorists and jihadist groups look for Islamic domination in the region; some even cite the continued fight for Jerusalem.
So then what is it that America doesn’t understand? Is it Arabic culture; is it the ways of Islam; is it that America doesn’t understand how frothy the Arab world is about Israel? The fact that these questions don’t have clear answers points to either a purposefully hidden agenda or duplicity in Arab culture in regard to how America is viewed.
What about misunderstanding amongst Arab about American culture? Arabs make up a growing constituency in America. More Arab young people are taking on the ways of the Americanized. Although young girls keep their head coverings they wear the shirts and pants of hip culture. Most times there is an ensuing clash with parents and other members of the older generation in regard to keeping cultural norms.
The threats to cultural norms are a real fear for Arabs. Their way of life is different and their understanding of how to handle conflict is quite different. This is not an accusation of having violence embedded in the culture; more an observation of different cultural norms. Issues such as mass adherence to religious code and the position of women in relation to men are very important cultural hot buttons. These seemingly small issues are the nagging issues for the rank and file in these cultures. No one wants their sons and daughters exposed to irreligious influences. That is important.
America was founded on an idea rather than cultural, racial or linguistic likeness. Most Arab countries are founded on the religion of Islam. This difference spawns much misunderstanding and mutual contempt. Environments that give platform for mutual respect need to be espoused and encouraged. That is the objective of the current American regime. However, misunderstanding is still rampant and damaging to relations.
There is still a lack of understanding for the level of priority desired for religious homogeny. No one of another country and culture can convince or influence another out of their cultural norms with handshakes and smiles. It takes more. The question is—is it worth it?
The assumption of total compliance falls on both sides. America is to totally comply with the will of the pundits of Islam. Whether or not this is right thinking is irrelevant. The solutions to these issues as far as where America stands are in understanding the true heart behind animosity toward Americans. Why the hatred instead of thankfulness for support? Why hostility and not hospitality? And what should we do with Israel?
With Arabs the question is more what to do with a world super power that supports their worst enemy. Should they comply they would have to let go of some of the deepest dreams of collective Islam. Is the answer waiting out another American regime (or even the collapse and removal of the United States); making a go at defiant domination of other nations; or coming close to empowerment (through military might) to pose their own threats and pull their own weight?
So what happens going forward? Is it natural human behavior? The answer to that is unclear; but human behavior does not operate outside of deep cultural influences.
Sources
MacAskill, Ewen, (2/2011) Mubarak Claims Obama 'Does Not Understand Egyptian culture'
The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/04/mubarak-stands-fast
Cafferty, Jack (9/2012) Should the U.S. Halt Foreign Aid to Libya and Egypt? Retrieved from
<http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/13/should-the-u-s-halt-foreign-aid-to-libya-and-egypt/>
Gitlin, Todd (2007) Anti-Americanism Today Dissent Magazine Retrieved from http://dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d10Gitlin.pdf
Farber, David (2007) What They Think of Us: International Perceptions of the United States Since 9/11 Princeton University Press
Payne, Richard J (19995) Clash With Different Cultures: Values, Interest and Force in American Foreign Policy: Albany, State University of New York Press
Caraley, Demetrios James (2002) September 11 Terrorist Attacks, And U.S. Foreign Policy. New York, NY, The Academy of Political Science.
