|
Johnson  |
FROM LONDON |
 |
|
|
 Prime Minister Tony Blair has put his political life on the line |
A fresh look at why Brits
aren't all cheering the U.S.
of TheColumnists.com
CHELSEA CLINTON can’t believe what’s happening to her in her first few months at Oxford. Her British fellow-students are actually anti-American.
When she broke silence in November in her mother’s favorite magazine, Talk, the London press jumped on the story with both feet. Some even sent journalists to Oxford to see for themselves--a rare example of first-hand reporting in these days of tight editorial budgets.
What they found was the same story that embarrassed Rhodes Scholars have been telling me privately for years: Most Americans at Oxford are isolated and treated with condescension by their haughty British counterparts and some of their tutors. In a reprise of the old World War II complaint, the Oxford crowd sees us as “overpaid, oversexed and over here.”
Worse, the young, smart and healthy Americans arrive on campus self-assured, ambitious and outgoing--three of the gaffes that annoy the British most of all. Doesn’t anyone warn them that the correct style here is rather “Know your place” and “Never be seen to be striving”?
In the Sunday Times, Harold Evans’ old newspaper, one former Rhodes Scholar recalled recently putting up with the isolation for six weeks, then taking the initiative to introduce himself to some of his British fellow-students: “When I tried to offer my hand out to shake, people would look at it like it was a dead fish.”
Chelsea and others find Oxford even less hospitable than usual today because of the war against terrorism, or, as it is known among the huge Muslim population in the United Kingdom: The war on Islam. American students, including Chelsea, took the bold step of unfurling American flags and disrupting an anti-American meeting on campus in mid-November as the U.S. bombing of Taliban positions dragged on beyond the expected duration.
I have lived in London for 20 years and have experienced many wild swings in U.S. popularity. On balance, I prefer the stage midway between the two extremes: pure indifference. A friend once nailed the British way of life in the best aphorism I have come across: “They are indifferent about food, indifferent about sex, and indifferent about each other.”
But the British today are far from indifferent about us. There are brave supporters, including Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has put his political life on the line by shuttling across the Middle East and Asia helping build and maintain the coalition.
Perhaps it is the nature of news that ensures that the negatives dominate the debate over his international involvement. Blair’s critics hammer him for taking his eye off the ball domestically and for hopping around the world in the Concorde to build up air miles. Blair never claimed to be a Churchill or a Gladstone, but the media won’t let him even contemplate wearing that mantle. He simply does not look the part, and his somewhat posh, effeminate and preachy delivery makes him appear out of his depth.
Blair is constantly skewered here as Bush's lapdog. One columnist wrote: “The relationship is now so close that Tony could probably rest his hand under America’s sweater, as long as he didn’t try anything too hasty in the bra strap area. His teeth gleam, and America likes that. He’s a loyal chum, and America likes that, too.”
One headline summed it up: “New Labour Sinks as Blair Saves the World.”
To an American, it seems a barrage of cheap shots in a time of great seriousness.
The ambivalence is evident daily in the media and in my personal relations around London. BBC airtime is freely handed over to critics of the campaign, many of them Islamic leaders in the provincial cities of Bradford and Sheffield, bearded old men with highly selective memories. They seem to have no recollection of how this campaign got started. Indeed, the horror of the Sept. 11 attacks has faded fast in this far-away capital. In this media-led atmosphere, I find myself at pains to explain the bombings and remind friends over lunch of the origins and the gravity of this conflict. Somehow they still seem unsatisfied.
The British press is the world’s most competitive, with 19 national newspapers vying for sales in a shrinking market. On a big story like this one, with knowledge of public ambivalence toward the war, commentators and headline writers try to outdo each other in a contest of vituperation. So eager was the British press to put the spotlight on a handful of British-born militant Muslims who volunteered to fight with the Taliban that even Muslims have complained that coverage is going too far over the edge.
Part of the problem seems to be the U.S. military’s wise decision to conduct this war in private. The television generation is more accustomed to the Gulf War 24-hour style of coverage, however dubious its truthfulness. The stealth of this campaign leaves a vacuum that the hardened anti-Americans are quick to fill. Within days of the start of bombing, the campaign was labeled by the British media as being behind schedule or simply a failure.
Yes, it is true that there is a special relationship between the two countries but the war on terrorism has once again brought out the points of divergence. The United States is still considered impulsive and lacking in historical perspective.
The British know about
Afghan quagmires, having lost thousands of men fighting there
in the 19th century. The British are more accustomed to terrorism.
IRA terrorists have been bombing buildings and landmarks in London
for 25 years as Irish Americans egged them on with financial
aid. Thus terrorism has a special context, somewhat tangled with
doubts about American loyalty.
The British SAS special forces set the standard for clandestine
armed interventions, leaving Delta Force, the Rangers and the
Seals behind in their “goat fuck” experiences, as one
U.S. Ranger described the first disastrous U.S. foray against
Mullah Oman’s headquarters.
The British believe they have more humane governance than the
United States. Capital punishment has long been outlawed here,
and therefore Britain will not extradite some of the men linked
to the attacks unless we also rule out capital punishment on
them.
Even in England, even at
Oxford, the critics haven’t seen the bigger story here.
The larger question is the future of global American influence.
Only a few months ago Americans spoke smugly of the irreversible
success of globalization--among Muslims, code for American colonization.
The el-Qaida network, operational in 60 countries, has now been
revealed as the tip of the much larger anti-American iceberg.
It turns out that the world is not at all delighted with the
American way, and fixing that problem cannot be done with daisy-cutter
bombs.
© 2001 by Michael
Johnson. The logo illustrations are from IMSI's Master Clips
Collection, 1895 Francisco Blvd. East, San Rafael, CA, 94901-5506,
USA.
To comment
on this column or contact Michael Johnson, please address an
email to him by name by clicking: talkback@thecolumnists.com
| Home | About Us | Archives | Talkback | Shopping Mall |
