Irish anti-Americanism

{First published in the Irish Voice in January 2003.}

"Bush is mad," someone told me last week. And, when an Irish person uses the word "mad" about President Bush, they don't mean he's angry, they mean he is "out of his mind". That opinion seems to be a fair reflection of the attitude of the population as a whole. As Mike Farragher discovered (last week's Voice) nearly everyone in Ireland is opposed to war with Iraq.

Obviously a large section of the American population is also uneasy about the possibility of war. Americans are weighing up a threat that's difficult to assess combined with the memories of September 11. They are balancing these with the risk to the lives of those who serve in the armed forces and all the other uncertainties that war can bring. And, yes, Americans are also loath to wage war if it means wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. This is a difficult decision and one that all Americans hope the President gets right.

Most of this does not seem to feature in any of the calculations here. For the most part Irish people simply do not believe that Saddam Hussein could possibly pose a threat to the US and that any American led war would be "immoral". The reason this is important is that for any American living here – or even just visiting – it is very easy to become dismayed when confronted by such attitudes.

Obviously, there are no views being expressed in Ireland that are not also being expressed in the US, but the universality of the anti-war and, often anti-American sentiment would get any American's back up. Many of the views that are popular and mainstream here are only espoused by people on the fringes of American opinion.

Anti-Americanism is in the air here, but most Irish people reject the notion that they're anti-American. Yet, they feel comfortable expressing views that can only be described as such.

Anti-Americanism can be difficult to define and it is often difficult to separate it from legitimate difference of opinion. However, I've developed some rules of thumb that help me sift the anti-Americanism from the various arguments regarding a possible war with Iraq.

There are only a few basic arguments that Irish people make regarding the US and Iraq and, with some gentle probing, the extent to which the speaker is anti-American or not can generally be deduced.

It's all about oil.

This is very common here. When people make this claim, I generally give them an opportunity to explain what they mean. If they tell me that the west's insatiable demand for oil is at the root of the problems with the Middle East, including Iraq, I see that as a valid viewpoint.

If, however, they say, "America only wants Iraq's oil", that is baldly anti-American. There are many factors that have led us to the brink of war, but a grubby resource grab is not one of them. It would obviously be far cheaper to strike a deal with Saddam for Iraq's oil than to fight a war. This statement reflects a stereotype of Americans as distinctly selfish and war mongering.

I'm not anti-American, but I'm anti-Bush.

As far as I'm concerned, this view is anti-American. President Bush is the President of the United States, and his administration governs on behalf of all Americans. Nobody in Ireland is concerned with the President's domestic policies (tax, healthcare, etc.). Although there are some minor differences of opinion regarding tactics, when it comes to Iraq he has the support of all the major leaders in both political parties and the American people. That is not acknowledged in Ireland.

Many people here speak of President Bush as if he is no more legitimate a leader than Saddam Hussein. For some reason, many Irish people believe you can separate the President and his government from the people who put him there and support him now.

When I read Cormac MacConnell's recent articles, I believed him when he said he is almost "blindly pro-American". Some of his arguments are more a questioning of US tactics than anti-American. Yet, I also thought to myself how contradictory, defeatist and almost hysterical he sounds.

He worries that war with Iraq will lead to terrorist attacks on Shannon Airport. Doesn't his fear indicate that he agrees with President Bush when he says that Saddam is connected to international terror? Isn't he also agreeing that Saddam possesses the wherewithal to inflict serious damage through terrorism? And, importantly, doesn't he realize that the many, many soft targets inside the US would be more appealing to Saddam than Shannon Airport?

If fear of attack is the reason for not going to war with Iraq, then we are already beaten and have been deterred by Saddam and the threat he poses. What reason is there to believe that this threat will not increase if we were to leave Saddam alone for the next five, or more, years?

Ireland is a neutral country.

Although I do wonder about this business of neutrality (neutral between the US and Iraq?), I don't believe it to be an anti-American position. As far as I'm concerned, neutrality is an inability to choose your friends or at least those with whom you share a basic worldview. It can be simply cowardly.

I often hear people state that they don't want to join any U.S. led defense pacts or participate in what they call "America's wars". Such views are anti-American because they are founded on the belief that the United States is unreasonably belligerent, willing to wage war with only the flimsiest of excuses.

War solves nothing or civilians will do most of the suffering.

Neither of these statements is anti-American. Many Irish people feel a sincere empathy with the victims of warfare and there will certainly be a strong reaction here to the images of killed or injured civilians.

However, when someone says, as Labour Party T.D. Michael D. Higgins was quoted in last week's Irish Voice, that the US is about to "wage war on a civilian population" that is anti-American. I know that the United States armed forces will do all they can to minimize civilian suffering. In fact, reducing civilian casualties is one of the primary design features of modern weapons development.

Ultimate responsibility for Iraqi civilians lies with Saddam and the choices he makes in the next few weeks. I too hope that civilian casualties can be kept to an absolute minimum. But, when I think of Iraqi civilians, I think of a nation of slaves ruled by a ruthless tyrant and his band of cronies. Faced with similar circumstances, I would prefer to take my chances in a war and the uncertain future beyond rather than remain living as a slave without hope. I believe most Irish people would too.

As an American, I accept that Irish people have the right to decide what nations they side with as they see fit. However, for many Irish-Americans, the fact that many in Ireland would choose not to support the US is stunning, if only because most Irish-Americans have always supported Ireland and wished Irish people well.

Official American attitudes towards Ireland should be based on the extent of mutual commitment. The Irish Government has recognized this aspect to international relations.

Acting out of naked self-interest, the government is permitting U.S. forces to land at Shannon on their way to the Middle East despite almost (seemingly) universal opposition to this policy. Therefore, state-to-state relations between the US and Ireland are apparently not going to be affected by any war with Iraq.

However, the relationship between Irish-America and the people of Ireland may be affected. Irish-Americans may want to consider Irish attitudes before they make that extra effort to "buy Irish" or plan that next trip to Ireland.

Why it's painful to be an American in Dublin

{This was published in November 2001 in the Irish Voice.}

Sitting on a train on September 11, heading home from work, shocked by what I'd
seen in the previous few hours, I wondered to myself if the people I
was looking at riding on that train with me felt the same as I did.

Were they horrified? Were they feeling sick? Were they in shock? A
group of schoolboys got on and were loud with nervous excitement
talking about what they'd seen. But, for the most part, there was
little conversation other than between mothers and their small
children. So, I figured people were feeling much of what I felt.

That night and over the following few days, the words of
President McAleese, Bertie Ahern, Mary Harney and others, the
thousands of Irish people who stood in line for hours to sign books
of condolences at the Embassy and the near complete closure of
Ireland and overflowing churches on September 14 for the National
Day of Mourning convinced me that, yes, Irish people were feeling as
I felt.

Fears of US over-reaction

Yet, even before the Day of Mourning was over, I had heard a few
people mention their "fear of the U.S. response." My reaction was,
"What do you have to fear? Ireland is hardly going to be bombed or
suffer any serious consequences from the U.S. response." But, I knew
that they were convinced that the U.S. was going to "over-react." I
had fears too. I was afraid that there would be more attacks, that
they might be of a nuclear, biological or chemical nature, that
family or friends were still in danger.

What I had seen on September 11 had convinced me that the
attackers had no moral limits. If they had access to nuclear
weapons, I was sure they would use them. Given that background, I
could see no way that the U.S. could be accused of over-reaction.
I was more afraid that President Bush and his administration
might under-react.

The reaction of the bulk of the Irish media was
exactly as I had expected. A mixture of selfish, skeptical,
anti-American, and "turn the other cheek" views provided a chorus of
condemning voices - even before the U.S. had done anything.

Once the bombing started, most of the coverage was marked by a
conviction of the futility and immorality of the campaign. One
Sunday newspaper argued that President Bush should give up his war
mongering and get back to making the economy right - as if "It's the
economy, stupid" still had any relevance.

Of course, I've become more sensitive as well. A sentence in an
article in the Far East, a missionary magazine, equating
George Bush with Islamic fundamentalists has convinced me to never
give another penny to the religious order that produces the
magazine. I also have a suspicion that RTE has deliberately stopped
showing the images of September 11 in the interest of "objectivity."
I know that the images of refugees are more frequently seen than the
World Trade Center - even though most of these refugees were living
in camps long before September 11.

It was horrific, BUT . . .

However, it was the reaction of people I know, my friends and
colleagues, that surprised me most. So many of them told me that
"What happened on September 11 was horrific, terrible, should never
have happened, BUT . . ." Generally what followed was something
along the lines of "U.S. foreign policy blah, blah, blah, global
poverty blah, blah, blah, the Palestinians blah, blah, blah, the
Gulf War blah, blah, blah.

Each supposed offense was offered as an explanation - "not a
justification, nothing could justify that" - of what happened on
September 11.

To my mind, these views are expressed by people who are willfully
naive. They're opposed to "all violence," and seem to believe that
if the U.S. simply addressed the "root causes" that all these
problems would evaporate.

They refuse to accept that sometimes military action is required,
that sometimes a country has to defend itself, that groups like Al
Qaeda will not just disappear if the U.S. suddenly pushes Israel to
accept a Palestinian state.

Last week I was having dinner with a group of friends of mine,
many of whom I haven't seen in more than five years. We were all in
the same class in the early 90's and were having a bit of a reunion.

At one point someone asked me how I was. This is a question that
has confused me for the past three months. The easy answer is "fine"
because I'm healthy, my family is thriving and there is nothing
going on in my personal life that requires any other answer.

But, the easy answer seems wrong too. Although I'm fine, I know
I've changed how I think and feel since September 11. I'm not just
getting on with my life as most Irish people seem to be.

Everyday I spend a few minutes reading the Portraits of Grief
on the New York Times web site. I spend some more time adding
details to the individual pages on the Irish Tribute web site.

Our upcoming family trip home for Christmas is a source of worry
because my six-year-old daughter is worried about flying now and
can't seem to stop talking about the World Trade Center.

What she witnessed on TV that day is still fresh in her memory.
All of this was on my mind when this guy I hadn't seen in more than
five years asked me how I was. I responded, "Fine, but of course,
changed by what happened on September 11." I thought it was a safe
enough answer. He knew I was from New York and surely he would
understand what I meant. I had decided as I was heading in for the
dinner not to talk about the War on Terror because I knew that would
end badly.

I didn't have a chance. His immediate reaction was not to
ask if everyone I knew was all right.

Instead, he launched into a tirade that all but blamed America
for September's terrorist attacks. Others joined in, admittedly more
sensitively, but equally certain that the U.S. had to address the
"root causes." Others felt that the reaction here should have been
no different than what happened when other atrocities happened
around the world, such as in Rwanda or Bosnia.

I was almost ready to respond with the old cliché that without
the U.S. "you people would either be speaking German right now or be
enjoying the same benevolent system that the Poles, Hungarians and
others enjoyed for so long." Rather, I tried to respond with
something about the responsibility of power. It was all in vain.

That's when it hit me. It's so easy for Irish people to revel in
their self-righteousness. They live in a powerless state that no one
could be offended by.

They are so secure and comfortable – under the umbrella of
American power and wealth – that they proclaim neutrality as a
virtue, knowing that the U.S. poses no threat to them nor would the
U.S. allow any other country to pose a threat to Ireland.

Health warnings

It's enough to get any American's blood boiling. I hope that the
attitudes of my friends are not indicative of the attitudes of the
majority of people in this country, but I fear they may be. I'm
certain that my friends' views are a fair reflection of those of
middle class Dublin.

A friend of mine from the west told me that people in the west of
the country are more supportive of the U.S.'s war on terror than
Dubliners are. I hope it's true because if it's not true, then I
think Bórd Fáilte should issue health warnings with their
advertising campaigns.

"Americans with heart conditions or pacemakers should avoid
visiting Ireland at this time as the attitudes of the Irish people
are guaranteed to raise your blood pressure 100%."

Growing up I was always proud of my Irish background. On September 11 I immediately knew that a large number of people with that same background had died in the World Trade Center. Before I saw the names I knew many of those of the missing firemen would be Irish.

I was in awe of their bravery. I also knew that many of those who
worked in the World Trade Center would have Irish names, that they
would be of a similar age, have gone to similar churches, schools
and colleges to the ones I attended.

I always felt a special affinity for Ireland and the people here. I've often been "proud to be Irish," but now that pride is shaken. It's much easier for me to say that I'm "proud to be Irish-American."