Click here to subscribe today or Login.
By STEVE MOCARSKY smocarsky@leader.net
Monday, March 17, 2003 Page: 8A
Worldwide opposition to U.S. involvement in military action isn’t something
new, but there are some stark differences to past world reactions.
After the Second World War, America’s first major conflict took place in
Korea in the early 1950s, and there was “not much protest around the world,”
said John Hepp, assistant professor of history at Wilkes University.
The U.S. deployment of ground troops in Vietnam was the first instance of
real protest. Those street protests are similar to current protests in cities
worldwide, Hepp said.
Protests from 1965 to 1973 were typical in Britain, France and elsewhere in
Europe, and a period of quiet ensued until Ronald Reagan ordered deployment of
troops into Grenada in 1982 to overthrow the Marxist government under the
pretense of rescuing U.S. dental students, Hepp said.
“In certain ways, there’s been a very similar reaction from people around
the world to the United States’ recent impending military action and past
military actions,” Hepp said. The contrast seems to come from the reasoning
behind the protests and government reactions.
“Since the Cuban Missile Crisis, European people have been concerned about
the use of America’s military power. But up to this time, the governments have
not publicly commented. They have communicated their fears in private.”
Reagan’s Star Wars strategic defense initiative caused worldwide protest
because until that time, people thought peace was assured by mutually assured
destruction. The United States knew it couldn’t attack the Soviet Union
without being wiped out and vice versa. But the United States’ ability to
launch a nuclear attack and then destroy retaliatory missiles took away that
war deterrent and made people nervous worldwide, Hepp said.
The next major round of worldwide protests came when current President
George Bush’s father ordered troops into Panama in 1989 to capture Panamanian
leader Manuel Noriega for drug crimes. Most of those protests did not provoke
the same type of concerns as did Star Wars or the Vietnam War, Hepp said.
“It was a questioning of U.S. military power. Many Europeans had the view
that the U.S. was basically going around the world and doing whatever it
wanted, regardless of what other nations might think.”
That is how the younger Bush is often seen now. And Hepp thinks
“aggressive” foreign policy remarks from Bush and Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld have “inflamed” anti-war sentiment.
Hepp thinks Bush’s term “axis of evil” was “unfortunate” because it
made people think the United States views the world “in very black-and-white
terms, you’re either a good guy or a bad guy.”
Most countries don’t have the luxury of seeing the world as being black and
white and good and evil. For example, South Korea may not like North Korea,
but they know they have to deal with each other because they’re neighbors,
Hepp said.
“They see the world in a shade of gray while Bush and Rumsfeld see the
world in black and white. That’s added to the fear. People don’t know what’s
going to happen next. They might ask, `What happens after Iraq? Will it be
Iran?’ People around the world say, `Where will it stop? If we let the U.S. do
this to Saddam Hussein, who’s next?’ ”