SPS student-written articles

 Wilton Park was something special. Being, I believe, the last one to sign on for the trip, I am sooo glad that I ended up going. Overall, this week of conferences at Wilton Park changed my perception of the US, Europe, and the rest of the world. The conferences not only altered some of my opinions regarding our current administration, but also helped me to see more clearly how some Europeans view America and its role in the world. This whole experience was so essential in finding common ground and building friendships across the Atlantic divide.
While I left Wilton Park with my view of America and Europe confirmed for the most part, I felt as though I had been significantly changed for the better in how I viewed Europe politically. It was very satisfying to discover that, although we gave a great "divide," our way of life differed only in detail. Several talked of a common history shared between Americans and Europeans as a uniting force. It was and is important to find these links and revitalize them, for several speakers at the conference and I had sensed a weakening connection between America and Europe. That is to say that young Americans are growing up in a country in which they think that Europe does not really matter, except, perhaps, when on vacation; Europe does not matter politically; it does not influence our actions. With more conferences like this one, hopefully with a few more Americans (go get 'em Bernard!), young Americans will realize that Europe should not be ignored in the 21st century.

First, let me comment on a few things that I got out of this conference. As Zach B. wrote, all the young Europeans seemed to be complaining about America's "cultural hegemony." They sighted American movies (Hollywood), American music (MTV), and American TV (Simpsons, Friends, Ally McBeal). Touring London for one day, it was apparent-- McDonalds (the UK McDonalds nicely sponsored our program!), Burger King, Starbucks, American movie ads on almost every double decker, baseball caps and T-shirts. Europe's buying into it. Does it really matter? Some Europeans, especially the British (there were a lot of British at this conference), noted their impossibly long history of 2000 years compared with America's measly two hundred. Their ure has been longer in the making and is, therefore, superior. Even if a majority of Europeans are buying into American ure, there are those Europeans who see America's ural tion to be a threat, at the same time, to their own precious ure. As Mr. Steve Ebbin told me, however, this is not America's problem to solve. I would agree. They can be angry for the decadence of ure, however they should not be angry at us, but rather angry at themselves for allowing it to come onto the continent.

Concerning the U.N., Europeans want more cooperation from the U.S. As the world's only super-power, Europeans acknowledge that America can "basically do whatever it wants to." Europeans hope that Americans and Europeans can work together, however, to solve world problems, rather than America's taking the "go it alone" approach. Iraq, obviously, is the most recent example of America executing its own agenda. One European said, with good reason, that 9/11 happened and America attacked Iraq, but let me save the Iraq issue for now. America, on the other hand, sees the U.N. as an organization that holds it back. The U.N., in America's eyes, cannot get anything done. Because of this view, the U.S. simply does not want to deal with the U.N. Again, we can do whatever we want. However, this indifference to the U.N. could hurt our relationship with Europe in the long run. Indeed, it already has hurt it and that is one of the reasons we were at the conference.

"Does the U.N. need to be reformed?" was one of the questions we addressed at the conference. Ben Bradshaw, a member of Blair's party in parliament, certainly thought so. Unfortunately, my knowledge of U.N. operations is fairly limited (perhaps because they don't do anything anyway! LOL). Seriously, though, one speaker noted that the U.N. is dramatically under funded and has done well with what it has, having helped out countries in Africa and having sent peace keeping troops to various countries in the past. Maybe so.

Returning to Iraq, however, the Europeans attacked hard. We had no support from any other country, save Tony Blair and Poland. They conveniently swept our support from other Eastern European countries under the rug. Regardless, we were in no ways justified. There were no WMD's and no hints of any links to Al-Quaeda. Yes, we freed the Iraqi's from an oppressive government, but why did we not go after North Korea or Saudi Arabia? I see two reasons here. It was obvious to the Europeans. We, in America, want to drive our large SUV's and pollute the atmosphere and that just makes us, altogether, more selfish and more arrogant. On aside, the British kept referring to American arrogance. I found British self-congratulations on their long history and even their manner of speaking on several occasions to be quite arrogant, but that is a ural issue. Nevertheless, Europe sees the U.S. as looking out for its own interests without a second thought. Without doubt, Ame

rica's oil economy is a problem in the long run and the U.S. should put more effort into alternatives to fossil fuels. Even more serious, however, was the unsubstantiated reasons for going to war. As Bob eloquently put it, "Do the ends justify the means?" The Europeans are angry at our president for lying and even more angry at the Americans, perhaps, for supporting him.
The patriotism of America came up as something which blinds America. Some Europeans suggested that as soon as America falls or finds itself seriously in the wrong, Americans will become as cynical of their government and politicians as the Europeans. Yet, others mark the eternal optimism of Americans in their country. Some Europeans see this optimism as a positive quality and others see it as an ignorance and arrogance. Perhaps America's national conscience gets to the heart of the issue. In times of war, Americans will support their president. The events of 9/11 will hopefully bring Europeans and Americans closer together, but they certainly brought Americans all over the country closer together. When national tragedy strikes America, it does not look to other countries for help, but gather its resources within itself, as it has done since the Civil War. The Europeans did not experience a ist attack like 9/11, so they naturally do not see a retaliation as necessary as the U.S. This experience can be seen seen as reminiscent of Pearl Harbor, after which a Japanese official remarked that Japan had awaken a "sleeping bear." So, now as then, the Americans flex their muscles and show what happens when you mess with the U.S. Which leads me to the next reason for attacking Iraq: we could. Tom Friedman came on the radio today and answered the question of why we did not attack Saudi Arabia, Iran, or N. Korea first, saying "we could." America needed to show the world that it would not tolerate people, of any nationality, flying planes into buildings like the World Trade Towers. Have the rest of the world gotten the message, yet?

Leaving patriotic feeling aside, let me discuss the heart of the issue, as taken from our discussions. What are the reasons for the attacks on 9/11? Two reasons I see as intelligible: First, American ural hegemony, but as I said before, radical Islamists and the rest of the world cannot really blame us for this. Second, as a Russian and Slovenian claimed, U.S. policy, but "U.S. policy" is too vague-- what U.S. policy? I picked up one: America's policy toward Israel.
Our policy, on good source, is that as long as America exists, it will support Israel. Most of the Arab world and its allies support Palestine. As a result, most of the Arab world criticizes America for supporting Israel. And, as I found from discussion with other young Europeans, much of Europe criticizes America's support of Israel.

The British, as I understand, set up Israel after the Holocaust, feeling guilty that they had not sheltered the Jews. One young British man at the conference noted that Israel was not set up on geographical boundaries and is, therefore, "not really a real country." Making clear that Israel is now America's problem exclusively, he suggested that if America stopped supporting Israel, it might help the problem. In other words, if America stopped aid to Israel, the Palestinian's and their Arab allies might have a better shot at defeating the Israelis. If Israel was defeated, the Arabs and Palestinian's would probably slaughter every last one of them. After all, where would the defeated Israelites go, if they were defeated?

Furthermore, seconded by a German, he said that Israel is the protagonist and starts the in every instance. In other words, it is Israel's fault that the continues. Here is a clear difference of opinion. On the American media, I have always heard of Palestinian ists and Israeli retaliation. Europeans seem to see the course of events in a contrary order.

The Palestinian/ Israeli conflict is clearly a difficult issue. With the help of Europeans, however, Americans might have a better chance at solving the problem. It seems somewhat hypocritical for the British to first start "the problem" by creating Israel, then not to assist in the peace negotiations, and finally to criticize America for favoring Israel. However, at Wilton Park, maybe we can find a solution. The young people were certainly open-minded or, at least, willing to hear out others.

Returning to ism, a big question was can ism be solved militarily? This question, however, relates back to the previous issue: What are the reasons for ism? If there are actual issues which cause ists to commit acts of , then perhaps America could devote itself to resolving these issues. America believes, however, that these ists have a radical ideology with which one cannot reason. Lecturers suggested that general problems plaguing the world, especially in third world countries, case people to take a radical ideology and, in turn, commit acts of ism.

Granted, there are other ways to combat ism. However, Americans do not see these problems as the main reasons for ism. Americans see a radical religious ideology that encourages the destruction of the infidel as being the main cause of ism. Americans, in other words, do not take the cause of the Islamic ist seriously. They take the threat seriously, for sure, but not the complaints behind the acts of . "They hit us and we'll hit them back ten times harder."
Some Europeans, however, are more willing to entertain the plight of the ist. How can we, as a more developed and advanced society, help the poor, impoverished fundamentalist and his country? They point out America's exploitation of third world countries. Instead of helping these people, America "throws money at them." Americans think that handing over more more money will solve the problem. One young Englishman described a state of the art double pump, installed by an American in an African country that had no access to fresh water. After two years, the pump broke down and the Africans had no water. He used this example to show that Americans do not really fix the problems of the world, so that they are fixed for good.

One speaker suggested that instead of spending all its money on the military, America should spend more money on research toward solving world problems, like AIDs for instance. America and Europe can agree that there are many ways to combat ism, but where should one put the emphasis? Part of the success of the conference was to raise questions like this one.
Other issues discussed concerned an American Empire, an East-West Divide, Poland's democracy, trade (bananas?), American French-bashing, and religion. All in all, we may not have covered every topic and we may not have discussed a particular one fully enough, but we did discuss an awful lot and, most of the time, the discussions were both pertinent and thought-provoking.

Now, as for my suggestions, I will write to Mr. Knisely because I do not choose this forum, but he can relay the word if he wishes. Thank you to everyone who helped to make this trip a reality for me and the other SPSers, especially Mrs. Waikart, Mrs. Mohawn, Mr. Steve Ebbin, Mr. Bob Knisely and the conference: Mr. David Pinder and McDonalds (U.K.). Again, very glad I went.