I don’t expect a cut’n’dry answer to this question, but I still think it’s worth talking about - hence GD and not GQ.
It seems to me that Americans have a negative reaction to international agreements or organisations, be it Kyoto, UN, GATT or NAFTA. This is a very broad brush, but I get a feeling that many, and maybe a majority of Americans are wary of anything that smells of internationalism.
Seeing that the U.S. might the the country with the biggest non-homogenous population in the world, I find this contradictory.
I think it’s that Americans are hostile to the idea of “being told what to do” by outsiders. We’ve been taught since childhood that we are inherently superior to other nations, unique in our governmental style and the only place on earth that’s completely free. (The veracity of this concept is immaterial. Many people believe it wholeheartedly and will not even entertain notions to the contrary.)
As a result of this, many people fear that they will somehow lose freedom or sovereignty if another country has any “authority” over us through international agreements or submitting to the UN.
I’ll use my grandfather as an example. He truly believes that other countries want to “take away our freedom” and that the UN is just a means of accomplishing it. Just why they want to do this is somewhat vague. It has something to do with resenting our wealth and power, but he’s never been able to fully explain it to me. I’ve heard others voice similar sentiments.
Frankly, I believe the cause of it is plain old ignorance.
I don’t think american’s fear internationalism as you state it. I think they fear joining international bodies and then being subject to those bodies. Americans want the power to act unilaterally - be it invading Iraq or having the highest per capita CO2 emissions on the planet.
Americans are the big dog but want to be able to act unilaterally - thus avoiding international bodies that might in fact make the US subjugate it’s interests to those of other countries.
There is a substantial group that feel that there is nothing to gain, and much to lose by joining these organizations. In certain areas I agree with them. There is no reason WTO regulations should affect a local action in Arkansas, for example. Most of the world has no idea how big the US really is. If Finland has an oil spill, it will affect Sweden, Estonia, Denmark, etc. If there is a spill three times as large in Colorado, people in California won’t even notice. Since we are so large and so far removed from the rest of the world, physically, we feel, rightly or wrongly, like the rest of the world has no business telling us what to do or how to do it.
I think this hits the nail on the head (though obviously as a non-American I could be quite wrong). The USA has many advantages, and has (compared to the rest of the world) a powerful military, a decent economy, and good resources. Practically any deal they make (bar trade for certain resources, like oil) is going to leave them at a disadvantage; they simply have more to lose than other nations.
Our ancestors came to this country from other countries, often within a few generations. Very frequently, they were actively fleeing these European countries.
The abuses of Czarist or Communist Russia, of Germany, the excesses of both the French Monarchy, Empire, & Revolution, the nasty ethic violence in Southeastern Europe, & the ingrained class system once found everywhere—our anncestors were running away from the rest of the world.
And being physically isolated, the only experience most Americans get of other countries is in the military.
Furthermore, memories, both immediate & cultural memories, of what Europe & Asia did to themselves in the 20th Century, in two World Wars, does not exactly leave us gaping in wonderment at the brilliant :rolleyes: judgement of “the International Community”.
Several reasons, all of which make perfect sense to me as an American, even though I disagree.
First off, the United States was settled primarily by people who wanted to get away from somewhere else. It was bad enough that our forefathers carried a lot of the old ethnic rivalries with them. Why should we want to get dragged into any more of your problems?
Secondly, there’s a powerful strain of “we saved their butts in World War I. We saved their butts in World War II. We gave them the Marshall Plan to rebuild them and this is what we get in return?”
Finally, international organizations are based on each nation having an equal voice. Why should we only have one vote when (insert name of your least favorite nation) can cancel us out?
Mix and match the attitudes as you see fit and you can apply them to virtually any issue.
The pertinent American trait is not a fear of internationalism, but an aversion to authority of any sort.
I have seen it argued that this characteristic is an artifact of Scottish sensibilities (by way of Ireland). The early American frontier was peopled by the so-called “Scotch Irish” (Irish protestants of Scottish descent) in the 18th century, and a sort of spirit of frontier independence and aversion to restraint is part of their supposed legacy.
I’m getting just a little bit tired of people saying that. Not to pick on you in particular, but this same sentiment was voiced a half dozen times in the geography thread as well. Christ on a crutch, our country is BIGGER than yours, of course we realize how frigging big the US is. And so do many others, even if they come from smaller countries. Gah. Yeah, there are some western Europeans that don’t seem to get it, but could you please give this a rest for a bit, just for me?
We enter into international agreements quite often. NATO, NAFTA, the Rio Pact, SEATO, SALT I & II, and the Limited Test Ban Treaty are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. While you’ll hear some Americans complain about NAFTA and the United Nations I think you might want to consider that we’re actually a part of those organizations. Hell, even some Europeans are critical of the EU, so why would you expect all Americans to like the organizations we’re a part of?
I think we’re wary of any deal that isn’t good for us. Kyoto, the land mine ban, and the ICJ aren’t good for us so we have no real desire to hop aboard. Just like every other nation we’re only interested in deals that benefit us.
Actually, the above international agreements you mention are pretty one sided or the US has effective veto power (eg UN via funding and structure of the security council). The above examples are all in the obvious best interest of the US and don’t have much potential downside.
Obviously we (the US “we”) want to be first among equals and no real desire to be equals. I would argue that Kyoto is in fact good for the world and good for the US (although some industries/factories, SUV drivers will take it in the shorts). Christ, who wouldn’t want to ban land mines (except for that pesky N Korean problem we have)? ICJ - yep, might not let the US kidnapp, transport secretly through sovereign nations without permission and torture prisoners who may or may not be enemy combatents. Damn it, we reserve the right to abrogate all treaties and agreements when it’s in our best short term political interests.
Actually, as Bosda points out, that is an explantion, not a contradiction.
The other day a hispanic comedian expressed it this way: “Do you know why so many people want to come to America? Because everyplace else SUCKS.” The audience – white, black, and brown – cheered.
Yes, one counterexample always defeats a generalization. :rolleyes:
But, come right down to it, yes, like Russia and like Canada, too. Both of those countries have immense nearly uninhabited wildernesses that very few citizens ever see. the US has a much larger populated area, and it also has a far more diverse (in very way) population and culture. In sociological and psychological terms those countries are “smaller” than the US. This does creates a sense that the US is its own world, entire of itself, which does not need reference to the rest.
That makes sense given that nations are not always equals. The point is we’re not afriad of international agreements or groups it’s just that we want to enter them on terms we consider acceptable.
Can anyone give me an example of a nation willing to compromise any of its vital national interests for the sake of the international community? Anyone?