• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Moisés Naím"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

In The Media

Why the world loves to hate America

Link Copied
By Moisés Naím
Published on Dec 7, 2001

Source: Carnegie

Why the World Loves to Hate America

By Moisés Naím

Originally appeared in the Financial Times, December 7, 2001

For all the post-September 11 focus on Islamic anti-Americanism, the world's reaction has in fact exposed the variety, complexity and ubiquity of antipathy towards the US. In Argentina, Hebe de Bonafini, an internationally known human rights activist and president of the Association of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo (mothers of Argentines who "disappeared" during the dictatorships), has said: "When the attack happened I felt happiness." In France, the editor of Le Monde Diplomatique offered his summary of the world's reaction: "What's happening to [Americans] is too bad but they had it coming."

Although few America-haters resort to terror, their simmering rage not only incubates violence; it also provides the moral support that can transform a crime against humanity into the opening salvo of a political, religious, cultural and economic struggle. Thus there is a need to understand it better.

Anti-Americanism's most frequent expressions usually reflect a mish-mash of grievances. But one can identify five types: politico-economic, historical, religious, cultural and psychological.

Politico-economic anti-Americanism represents a reaction to current US foreign policies: support for Israel or for repressive governments in the Middle East; the US's role in the Balkans; its embargo on Iraq and Cuba; the lack of support for the Kyoto protocol on climate change or for the establishment of the international criminal court. US economic policies also draw fire, whether for limits on imports from poor countries or for the use of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to advance US interests.

Historical anti-Americanism has its roots in past US behaviour. In a column titled "The Last September 11", Ariel Dorfman, a Chilean novelist, reminds his readers that on September 11 1973 the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende, the Socialist president, was overthrown in a military coup backed by the US. "Both in Chile in 1973 and in the States today, terror descended from the sky to destroy the symbols of national identity, the palace of the presidents in Santiago, the icons of financial and military power in New York and Washington." Similar sentiments are common in many other countries.

Religious anti-Americanism is most virulently expressed by Islamic fundamentalists. In the words of Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's late spiritual leader, "[Americans] are the great Satan, the wounded snake." But religious anti-Americanism is by no means exclusively Muslim. Roman Catholic liberation theologists, Greek Orthodox prelates, fundamentalist Jewish rabbis and US televangelists also condemn American society's "corrupting immorality".

Cultural anti-Americanism is stirred by the ability of the American way of life to influence and often displace local cultures. Satellites that beam US television overseas and commercial brands that attract billions of consumers also stoke anxiety and anger about cultural invasion. The list of American realities that jar the sensibilities of citizens in other countries is long: women's rights, sexual permissiveness, drug use, gun ownership, the death penalty, intrusive marketing, fast food, tolerance for economic inequality, racism and high incarceration rates.

Psychological anti-Americanism is fuelled by jealousy, resentment, ambivalence and crushed expectations. The seductive allure of American capitalism, freedoms, products and culture often co-exists with ambivalence about them as being economically or politically unattainable.

In the early 1990s, millions around the world believed that it was just a matter of time before economic liberalisation, political reforms and globalisation propelled their standard of living closer to that enjoyed by Americans. Ten years later, Americans are richer while people in most transition economies and emerging markets still struggle, their frustration heightened by cheap, almost universal access to images and information about how much better Americans live. As the Greek writer Takis Michas notes, while anti-Americanism used to be driven mostly by what America did, now it is also motivated by what America is.

What to do? Combating the various types of hatred should be viewed as a vital component not just of fighting terrorism but also of creating a more stable world. US foreign policies need to be screened against this overarching interest.

The five types of hostility towards the US are not equally difficult to overcome. Religious anti-Americanism may be insurmountable but some of the negative sentiments rooted in politico-economic causes may be more easily allayed. Think, for example, about the effect that US reluctance to pay its United Nations dues had on global opinion. Is the ill will generated by such actions worth it?

Inconsistent policies, double standards and policy volatility also feed anti-Americanism. The US government's principled defence of the property rights of pharmaceuticals companies holding the patents for drugs used to treat HIV-Aids in Africa was quickly revised when it became necessary to treat anthrax in the US. Americans isolate the Cuban Communist dictator while engaging the North Korean one.

Too frequently, policies that are trumpeted by successive administrations as deeply rooted in American values are sacrificed at the altar of short-term expediency or are contradicted by other policies. Given the unpredictability of the international environment and the way US democracy, politics and institutions work, the system will always produce policies that are fickle or contradictory. Nonetheless, reducing the volatility and inconsistency of US foreign policies is possible and should be seen as an important goal in terms of advancing US national interests.

US policymakers should also recognise that, tempting as it may be for the US to act alone in world affairs, unilateral actions usually bear a price in stoking anti-American feelings. For years that cost was seen as negligible. Even today anti-Americanism is often dismissed as an unavoidable by-product of superpowerdom or as mere hypocrisy. As one former US diplomat puts it: "Lots of those folks who burn the US flag in front of our embassies are back applying for visas a few days later."

That is true but, as we now know, not all of those who burn US flags also want visas. Some really want to burn the US and are willing to die in the process. These suicidal anti-Americans will never be persuaded to change their minds. But other critics might; still others might even be converted into friends. It seems worth trying.

The writer is editor of Foreign Policy magazine. www.foreignpolicy.com

About the Author

Moisés Naím

Distinguished Fellow

Moisés Naím is a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a best-selling author, and an internationally syndicated columnist.

    Recent Work

  • Research
    The World Reacts to Biden’s First 100 Days
      • +10

      Rosa Balfour, Frances Z. Brown, Yasmine Farouk, …

  • Commentary
    View From Latin America

      Moisés Naím

Moisés Naím
Distinguished Fellow
Moisés Naím
SecurityForeign Policy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Trump seated and gesturing while speaking
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Iran War Is Making America Less Safe

    A conflict launched in the name of American security is producing the opposite effect.

      • Sarah Yerkes

      Sarah Yerkes

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?

    Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By Date

    Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wearing an orange cap, and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, dressed in saffron robes, are greeting supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during a roadshow ahead of the Indian General Elections in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, on April 6, 2024.Trump raises hands behind a lecternCarney speaking on stage
    Collection
    The Middle Power Moment?

    The world has entered an era of upheaval—a period of heightened geopolitical rivalry, deepening political polarization, quickening technological change, glaring economic inequality, accelerating environmental crises, and eroding respect for international law. This moment of disruption and fluidity is also one of opportunity, however. It provides openings for middle powers, both established and emerging, to exercise unaccustomed agency and influence the future of global order.

    Carnegie scholars are analyzing middle power responses to this moment of upheaval and assessing whether—and under what conditions—these states can contribute to practical problem solving. They are asking critical, concrete questions: What countries, precisely, are we talking about when we refer to middle powers? In what issue areas do their priorities converge and diverge, including across North-South divides? In what domains can middle powers pack a punch, rather than produce a whimper? Are they willing to shoulder actual burdens and responsibility? Finally, how can middle powers assert themselves globally, without running afoul of or threatening their relations with the United States or China?

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.