Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century
Studies of anti-Americanism have proliferated, for perhaps obvious reasons, over the past several years. What distinguishes Sweig's is that it focuses on traditional U.S. allies whose populations and leaders are turning against the United States rather than on long-standing critics. Accordingly, the book says little about Egypt or France and instead contains case studies of Germany, South Korea, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. The broad point is that "friendly fire" from these allies could prove more costly to U.S. interests than anti-Americanism during the Cold War ever did. Sweig, a Latin America specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, acknowledges that the causes of this new anti-Americanism are partly structural: the end of the Cold War, the growth of U.S. power, and globalization have all created more resentment of, and less apparent need for, American hegemony than existed in decades past. But Sweig also sees the new anti-Americanism as the product of policy choices, "self-inflicted wounds deepened by the retreat of progressive values at home." Her recipe for fixing the problem -- a mixture of policy shifts on key issues and more polite, empathetic, and multilateral diplomacy -- is familiar. But it is also convincing.
Related
In American Vertigo, Bernard-Henri Lévy updates Tocqueville and defends the United States against anti-Americanism, while in Überpower, Josef Joffe counsels Washington on how to maintain its primacy.
Anyone wishing to master the art of confusing the issues, scoring effective but unfair debating points, and persuading others to miss the point, should make a study of what is widely accepted in the West today as enlightened, liberal discussion of international politics. Many politicians, some of whom perhaps agree with Wilde's proposition that to be understood is to be found out, make no sustained or imaginative effort at clarifying issues and explaining policies; and many intellectuals seem to consider marching, sitting, signing, visiting, going to jail and attending conferences (all activities which involve contributing prestige rather than intellectual talent) as more important political activities than attempting to raise the standard of public discussion. Debating devices which are manifestly unfair and which can do nothing but mislead are accepted as normal weapons of controversy, even by, and in fact especially by, those who make the highest moral claims for their case. Such techniques are not for the most part new, but it is interesting and perhaps important to see how they are applied to the facts of contemporary international politics.
A new survey of U.S. public opinion on foreign policy shows that the war in Iraq and terrorism are not the only problems on Americans' minds. Public concern over the United States' dependence on foreign oil may soon force policymakers to change course. And religious Americans are rethinking their support for many of Bush's policies, which has brought them closer in line with the rest of the public.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.