Why Do They Hate Us? A View from Mexico
Here is another answer to the question many Americans have been asking since Sept. 11.

By John Dickson

Why do they hate us? That question has been on the minds of many Americans ever since the horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001.

To some extent, the explanation lies in the phenomenon known as schadenfraude, the great German term which captures in one word the (sometimes) secret joy people take in seeing someone else's discomfort, pain or defeat -- even, or perhaps especially, a friend's. But I believe that sentiment is just one part of the answer to the question.

For those of us in the Foreign Service who have been living with this question and the reality of resentment and hate towards the U.S. throughout our careers, it seems logical to look overseas for some answers.

Shortly after Sept. 11, the banner headline in Jornada, a left-leaning Mexico City newspaper, mocked us yet again for being so unaware of how the world supposedly views Americans: "Bush: Amazed the World Hates USA." And the truth is, to that paper's readership, it is plainly obvious, and understandable, why the world hates the U.S. And yet it is equally true that many Americans were amazed at the depth of hatred which could produce such horror and rejoicing over our tragedy.

Not just in Mexico, but in many other parts of the world, we have been hearing the word "arrogant" a lot used recently to describe us. Our critics feel that we are rubbing in their faces our status as the world's only remaining superpower whenever we call ourselves the "indispensable nation," however accurate that characterization may be. They resent having to rely on us to promote world stability, peace and prosperity.

This is completely understandable, to be sure. To use a sports analogy, the side which dwells on the game long after it is over is usually the losing side, not the winner. Thus, here in Mexico, they talk about 1848 as if it were yesterday. They have a museum dedicated to the interventions of, principally, the U.S., while, we have no such institution dedicated to our victories over Mexico or any other nation. Indeed, our limited collective sense of history barely goes back to the 1994 Mexican peso bailout. By contrast, the same Mexican paper which printed the headline above also printed a list of all U.S. military interventions around the world in the last 50 years, filling up a whole page of small type. There are those who know that list by heart, and they are undoubtedly the same who said that on Sept. 11, the U.S. "was reaping what it had sown."

They also don't like that we seemingly haven't cared what they think of us. We just keep moving ahead, coming out with a newer and better model of a product, or a city center, or an idea, every year or half-year, leaving them further and further behind. Meanwhile, their voices get even louder and opinions even shriller because we ignored them the first time around. I remember one African politician who once said that each country ought to be represented in our legislature because what is decided in our Congress affects other countries, and they should have a say in decisions which affect their country.

Our critics also hate us both because we are rich and because, they insist, we got that way at their expense. Global trade (NAFTA being the example that hits closest to home for many Mexicans) only helps the United States, they complain, allowing us to penetrate their markets without giving them leverage to compete with us. They see their consumers choosing to buy our movies, our corn, our sneakers and so many other products and services -- decisions which collectively put their uncompetitive industries and their farmers out of work. But such short-sighted, zero-sum analysis overlooks the new industries in their own countries created to satisfy the needs of ever-expanding global trade as well as the elevation of their own living standards. It also disregards one undisputable fact of the past decade: the U.S. has been the world's principal consumer, strengthening the economies of many countries through our purchases.

And then there's the criticism which crosses into the category of misinformation, deliberate or not, and helps fill up the well of resentment. Mexicans know all too well the political uses to which past governments here put their routine, public expressions of anti-Americanism. And on a personal level, take the example of a political science professor who once told me that if the U.S. divided up its military budget among the total population of the world, every person on earth would have $50 million dollars! After asking him if I could use his calculator to do my taxes, I wondered how many classes he had told this "fact" to over the course of his career. It's no wonder there's so much resentment of us in Mexico and elsewhere.

Double Standards

We also hear the term "double standard" as our critics talk about our behavior around the world. They know we are a great nation with great ideals, and they hold us to them. They also are quick to point out when we don't live up to them, and even more so when we don't live up to the ideals which we expect from others.

For example, a Mexican university student said to me recently that maybe it is time for us to be a little self-critical, to review our policies. My answer to him was: welcome to the land of self-criticism! We are constantly reviewing our actions, analyzing them. It is part of our system, part of our character, part of the way we become better. We evaluate, tinker, and make it better. And move on.

But that self-criticism is misinterpreted overseas and often used against us. People who criticize us outside of our country are often reading our own newspapers and magazines or watching our own television and using the same arguments which are part of our everyday democratic discourse to criticize our failures. They cite the same examples, they quote our own pundits and scholars. But they don't complete the loop because they're not part of the other side of that self-criticism -- the side which uses the criticism to self-correct and improve. So all that's left is the criticism, filling up the well of resentment.

One ironic example in this is that over the past decade, we have criticized ourselves for not being tolerant enough in our country, and we have designed a national campaign around building tolerance, around valuing as a strength our diversity. And so our critics overseas have latched on to our concern over intolerance in the U.S., and fail to see the contradiction as they use the most intolerant of language in their criticism of us.

Yet our critics, too, have a double standard. They know we are a powerful nation, and they depend on our leadership. They resent our power on the one hand, but they also exaggerate it, hating us when we fail to use our clout to solve their problems, whether it is the Palestine-Israel conflict or world poverty. They also resent us using our power to advance our own interests. And, quite frankly, we often define our interests in ways which reflect short-term, parochial gains, rather than taking into account broader, global benefits which would benefit us more in the long term.

On a more "micro" level, consider two different sets of Mexicans who visited the U.S. embassy in Mexico City on the same day not long ago. While 350 demonstrators were out in front burning our flag (a not uncommon event, admittedly), another 2,500 people came throughout the day -- as they do every other day -- to get visas to travel to the U.S. Yet which group got their picture in the newspaper as representative of Mexican attitudes towards the U.S.?

Similarly, no prizes for guessing which of the following two groups was more criticized in Mexico for restricting the press: the Taliban, who initially kicked out all "infidel" journalists, arrested those who have tried to sneak back in their country and actually murdered journalists, or the U.S. government, which committed the "sin" of asking the main television networks not to air bin Laden's video message in its entirety because of the possibility that he might have been using that low-tech means to communicate messages to terrorist cells in the U.S.? Indeed, several respected Mexican commentators have dismissed our television networks as "arms of the Pentagon" as a result of their decision to comply with the administration's request.

Finally, a poll in the Mexican daily Reforma at the end of September indicated that 70 percent of Mexicans thought that Mexico should adopt a neutral stand in the current conflict. And yet, when asked if they expected the U.S. to support Mexico if it were confronted with terrorism, 70 percent of the same respondents said yes.

The Rest of the Story

As such examples show, in the end, resentment of the U.S. is both more than it seems, and less. Much of it is mixed with admiration, though the line between the two emotions can be thin and blurred.

A recent Mexican newspaper article attempting to describe the United States consisted of nothing but a free-association list, a full column of names, places, and events which undoubtedly inspired either admiration or resentment in its readers. The list covered cultural figures (such as George Gershwin, Andy Warhol, Janis Joplin), shopping items or travel destinations (Barbie, 5th Avenue, the San Diego Zoo, pretzels and waffles), and then historic, political or military terms or events (Monroe Doctrine, drug trafficking, smart bombs, Grenada). Like the list, most Mexicans' feelings about the U.S. are a jumble of mixed, contradictory and fluid memories and associations.

In fact, such a list becomes a Rorschach ink blot, where the sum total of the positive and negative views would determine where one's views reside on the continuum of resentment to admiration.

For our part, I was not surprised by the American response when we realized that some people in the world hate us enough to do what they did on Sept. 11. Our character as a nation has been on full display, both in New York and elsewhere, from that date forward. We will not, as a nation, cry in our beer. Self-pity is not part of our character. We will do as we have always done. We will reflect and evaluate, come up with a plan and make it better. And get back to work.

We are already looking inward to see what we did to create that resentment. We have made some immediate corrections, such as paying U.N. dues and waiving the irritant of drug certification. Commentators in prominent U.S. newspapers are questioning the cutbacks in exchange programs and international broadcasting, and in public diplomacy generally. We are already getting to work on doing a better job of communicating what we stand for, and I am confident we will come up with a plan to reach youthful populations overseas, particularly in the Middle East.

But ours is not the only country which should be using this opportunity for a little introspection or mid-course correction. Our universities should not be the only ones revising their curricula to make them more international, and our media should not be the only ones to reexamine their content for accuracy or to include other perspectives.

Above all, we need to keep in perspective the handful of foreign demonstrators burning the U.S. flag. Yes, some in the world do indeed hate us, but many admire us. Thus, we should take solace from the moving St. Paul's Cathedral memorial service for the victims of the Sept. 11 tragedy, and resolve from the less widespread news of Mexicans resident in the U.S. who were so angry at the terrorists that they wanted to enlist in our armed services. And let us choose to remember the many spontaneous and anonymous gestures of support such as the flowers placed in front of many of our embassies and consulates around the world and the thousands of cards, notes, and letters sent to our posts around the world even by people who have never been to the United States. [Editor's Note: See "FSOs and FSNs Recall Sept. 11," Nov. 2001 FSJ, and "FS Personnel Recall Sept. 11, Part II," Dec. 2001 FSJ.]

John Dickson, an FSO since 1984, has served in Lagos, Durban, Lima and Washington. He is now the public affairs officer in Mexico City.