A Convenient Myth Through the Filter of Reality
by George de Poor Handlery

Intellectual Conservative, AZ
June 15 2005

America’s myth of convenience is that the “new Europe” is on her
side, while America is being deserted by “old Europe” that the US
alienated by saving it repeatedly.

Let this begin with an admission. The subject pains the writer and
therefore, he would prefer not to have to write the essay. Generally
a topic one elaborates elicits pleasure as it takes shape. In this
case the sensation is vinegary. Thus only the intellectual commitment
to causes that by definition transcend personal preferences, furnish
the energy to proceed.

The recent experience that triggered this piece had its venue in
Hungary. In many ways the locale is not decisive in determining the
content and the conclusions that issue from it. What happened could
have occurred anywhere in the “West’s” new “East.” Here the term
“Europe” has been consciously avoided. In what most Americans still
mean under the word, namely Western Europe, the barbs connected to
the arguments reconstructed would have been more poisonous and the
arrows carrying them laden with supplementary energy.

Let us begin with what the title refers to as the “myth.” America’s
myth of convenience is that the “new Europe” is on her side while the
country is being deserted by “old Europe” that the US alienated by
saving it repeatedly. While it would be comforting if it would be so,
the sad fact is that on the whole, the “new Europe” is not so
inclined when the going gets tough with the US. This gap between the
desired and the actual is no accident. The “filter of reality” is,
therefore, essential.

For the purpose of a discussion, a (science) Ph.D. friend, who lives
in the West, brought a group together in his vacation home. The truly
native participants need introduction. They consisted of another
science Ph.D. and of a Professor, who is a hospital director and
heart specialist of repute. Both share the honor of membership in the
National Academy. The latter’s wife, an MD, also participated. The
Ph.D. had extensive living experience abroad. It began when as an
eleven-year-old he was a POW in US custody. Then he spent years
outside the “Socialist Block,” for he was delegated to serve as an
expert, mainly in Geneva, in an UN-affiliated body. Describing the MD
it is to be noted that the man is strongly religious.

Triggered by the crisis of her Red-Green coalition, the foreseen
topic was Germany. Within seconds this subject got side-lined and the
focus fell on the USA. That was the point where I chose to become a
silent observer intent to suck up uncensored views for subsequent
use. It is to be assumed that only my host — who shares my
world-view and knows my vocation — understood the strategic concept
behind my tactical comportment as a grey mouse.

In some ways the surprising thing about the lively exchange of
perceptions was that there was no overriding local color to it.
Except for a few asides and referrals to past events, the very
cosmopolitan “locals” — interrupted by the skeptical questions of my
host — sounded much like the fashionable America-bashers of Western
Europe. This should be something of a surprise. What used to be the
Outer Empire of the USSR was, except for geography, in everything
that determines life, further from “Europe” than Tasmania is
geographically. Nothing is revenged more vociferously than good
deeds. However, Hungary’s region never got American help. One would,
therefore, assume it not to have developed the resentment that fuels
the desire to retaliate as in the case of the French after ’45 and
lately the Germans.

The prejudices voiced were “standard.” That suited them for
evaluation without needing reconstruction prior to an evaluation.
Only one outrageous point departed from the mold cast by local PC. It
came from the MD who revealed, with others seconding her that, she
would have voted for Kerry. For this the reason given was that he had
a European background which furnished a civilizing influence. His
ancestors’ recent immigration makes him “sympathetic” and could be
taken as a sign of culture lacked by Bush the bloke. This was the
point where I briefly fell out of my role. I proved to be unable to
withhold that by this standard Szalasi, Hungary’s Hitler, should also
find approval, having been of (Armenian) immigrant stock.

Such views my reader might take as pertaining to a marginal issue
that inadvertently degenerates into the ridiculous. Let me submit
that, while we are talking about marginal symptoms, these harken back
to roots that are significant.

The distorted image depicting the US has several sources. One issues
from the current weakness of Europe. Originally the feebleness was
only military to which, currently, an economic dimension is being
added. Europe is not only wanting in power-terms, the reaction to the
new economy of globalization is equally feeble. Overcoming these gaps
is currently unlikely, as the will to do so is lacking. Therefore
American successes are not an example to follow, but due to their
accomplishments, a humiliating provocation. A further component of
the hostility is that, instead of making the effort to cope with the
US by catching up to surpass her, hammering America into the ground
gains favor. In Hungary and her likes, the very fact of the US’
leading position is, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary,
a proof of an intent to dominate and to exploit. The fact-defying
assumption finds support in a very real but subjectively interpreted
past. The small countries of the zone in which Hungary is located
have during the past been under the domination of major powers. All
have used their muscle to squeeze the peoples that fell in their
sphere of influence. This activates a Pavlovian reflex. The US, being
“top nation,” is in a position to do whatever the Germans and the
Russians have done. In the light of local experience, if the
Americans can oppress they must be bullies, because all others powers
in a comparable position have been oppressors.

Thus, ignoring experience, it is no surprise that in both Europes the
view that the US (and Israel) is the major threat to world peace
prevails. No change in American foreign policy will make this
impression fade. Europe happens to find the thesis of America’s
threat to global security a convenient dogma. Accepting the notion
enables her to see threats, such as North Korea and a nuclear Iran,
through the filter of equivalency. These regimes might be up to no
good. But so is America in case it undertakes to mobilize against
them, while it rates as unreliable if it desists from acting.
Naturally, should containment fail, the US’ ineffectiveness will be
the cause. The pleasant upshot: Europe needs to do nothing. Take the
case of the EU’s own mild sanctions in 2003 against Cuba for its hard
line towards its dissidents. Socialist Spain removed Europe from even
appearing to be close to the US in the firefight between Castro and
Washington by suspending the implementation of her sanctions in the
interest of a “constructive dialogue.” Since then — what a shock! —
persecution continues. So does the suspension. No surprise. All
considered, not a bad situation: nothing is done and the independence
from cowboy America is maintained.

Listening to Europeans it quickly dawns on you that much of the
problem is compounded by ignorance of the US’ modus operandi and by a
tendency to misinterpret much that is connected to her. A case in
point came about when the group voiced the idea that America’s
barefootedness is natural as it is a young country. Whether a long
history and wise, proper and decent comportment on the world scene
correlate, is open to debate. As a secret observer the writer
refrained from provoking it. The same is true regarding the
consideration that if you take measures by comparing unbroken
political traditions, the US wins easily. She happens to have, since
the acceptance of her constitution, by far the oldest system of them
all.

Misunderstanding — being a category separate from “not knowing” —
reinforces pre-conceived images. When the discussion shifted to
America’s desire to grab the world’s resources, the former pre-teen
POW found confirmation in the American soldiers’ who took his cap.
You and I might surmise that the motive was not pecuniary gain but
the collection of memorabilia. Within that category, parts of a
child’s adult uniform are likely to score high. Also from this Gent
came the observation that at the UN, by innuendo due to Washington’s
efforts, there are too many Americans. Here obviously a Soviet block
effort, to infiltrate with politically screened personnel, who de
facto represented the Kremlin’s interests, is applied, assuming
equivalence, to the US. What a field-day it would be for the media
from the NYT to PBS, if Washington’s efforts to inject its agents in
the world organization’s civil service could be unmasked! A society
contributing 22% of the UN’s budget and generating about a quarter of
global GNP, and one that also produces excellent post-graduates, is
naturally likely to fill a lot of slots without its government’s
octopus arms heaving its citizens into openings. Actually, America’s
threat to the UN is not kidnapping it to be used as an instrument,
but in abandoning it.

As disappointing as opinions such as those regurgitated here might
be, their main impact on American and Atlantic security does not end
with the current shaky state of the alliance. Assuredly, the matter
is serious, it acts as a brake on the conduct of foreign affairs, and
it demands that those relationships that by now have only tradition
to recommend them, be reassessed. However, the thought that emerged
in the course of the discussion took a turn in an entirely different
direction. My insight had been that the main problem is not the tone
and the content of talks such as the one I was involved in.
Ultimately, the efficacy of US policy serving the national interest
and protecting the freer part of the world is decided on her home
front. That is why I imagined the presence of a largely apolitical
American at the table. How would he react? The US must be doing
something perennially and knowingly wrong to provoke hostile
reactions. This is also the wide-spread logic behind the idea that
the outrage of 9/11 must have its roots in an even greater inequity.
“Cleaning up America’s act,” stroking those who snap at her hand
might just be the solution. Precisely this “Europeanizing” of US
policy constitutes the major danger. America can easily overbid
Europe with concessions aimed at buying cooperation. If, however, the
reaction is contempt — as in Pyongyang’s armament program — the
threatening question is this: who will defend the US the way America
is ultimately likely to cover her allies, once conciliation leads to
confrontation?

George Handlery is an historian. He has lived and taught in Europe
since 1976.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress