The German Marshall Fund has just released Transatlantic Trends, their annual survey of European and American public opinion. The survey collects data on issues ranging from the popularity of the American President (Europeans really like President Obama and they really hated G. W. Bush) to opinions on NATO, the European Union, climate change, economic policy, the war in Afghanistan and so forth. You can find their “Key Findings” here and the detailed “Topline Data” here.
The most striking difference between Americans and Europeans is reflected in answers to the following rather cautiously worded statement:
Please tell me to what extend you agree with the following: Under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice.
The American response:
Strongly agree: 37 percent
Somewhat agree: 34 percent
Somewhat disagree: 11 percent
Strongly disagree: 14 percent
For those who are counting, that’s 71 percent who agree to 25 percent who disagree.
By contrast, the Europeans answer:
Strongly agree: 8 percent
Somewhat agree: 17 percent
Somewhat disagree: 22 percent
Strongly disagree: 49 percent
That’s 25 percent who agree to 71 percent who disagree.
The UK is the only European nation that could muster a majority who agree that under some conditions war is necessary to obtain justice, but only barely at 55-40 percent, coming in at percentages of: 20, 35, 15, and 25 respectively.
On the Continent one finds a rather dismal picture. Worth mentioning is the high percentage of Europeans who strongly disagree, suggesting that they believe that under no conditions can war ever be necessary to obtain justice: 57 percent of the French (5, 13, 24, 57), 55 percent of the Germans (6, 13, 25, 55), 64 percent of the Italians (4, 12, 20, 64), 55 percent of the Spanish (4, 10, 30, 55), and 60 percent of the Belgians (3, 14, 18, 60). Only 47 percent of the Dutch strongly disagree (10, 19, 22, 47), which makes them, I suppose, the warmongers of the Continent.
Pretty bleak, but then again, let’s look on the bright side. Who wouldn’t prefer having a nation of German pacifists than a nation of goose-stepping Nazi’s traipsing through Europe? Certainly, the German pacifism of the first part of the twenty-first century is to be preferred to the German militarism of the first half of the twentieth.
But militarism and pacifism, of course, don’t exhaust the range of moral options (and I would argue that they tend to go together like Tweedledee and Tweedledum, but that is for another day.) If they thought real, real hard, and reached deep into their heritage, Europeans just might be able to come up with a few conditions under which war should be waged for the sake of justice. Or maybe not so deep, maybe just as far back as, say, Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald. A visit to the American cemetery at, say, Normady, for example, might also serve to jar their collective conscience. But I doubt it.
In any case, let’s hope the Germans, French, Dutch, Spanish, Belgians and the rest figure it all out before some decidedly less-pacifist, more militaristically inclined predators, see fit to take advantage of their pacifistic naiveté. I suspect, however, that it might take a few twenty-first century storm-troopers goose-stepping down the streets of Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, and Madrid to get their attention. By then, it will be too late—but maybe not too late to call on the Americans. Maybe.
September 10th, 2009 | 9:28 am
Your tantalizing hint at the Tweedledee/Tweedledum aspect of pacifism/militarism is what I was mulling as I read your essay. I would like to see it developed.
It’s hackneyed but true: people who believe in nothing will fall for anything. That sanctimonious sneer that Americans are stupid and easily led into mischief is merely part of the bickering with their own silly twin.
September 10th, 2009 | 9:58 am
Truth be told, I would pose another question to both the Americans and the Europeans: What is justice? The answer to that question may provide the background for the responses given to the question that was posed.
September 10th, 2009 | 12:17 pm
So let me get this straight. Europe’s problem is that it lacks the appropriate culture of death. Fascinating.
September 10th, 2009 | 1:05 pm
The question as stated, is too nebulous to really mean anything. I’m sure that there are people on both sides of the Atlantic who, though in accord completely on a concrete, practical level, would answer differently in so far as the question allows them to project how they see themselves.
September 10th, 2009 | 3:17 pm
Maybe it has something to do with the American military umbrella (which some folks may call an occupation) over much of Europe. If you are worried by an incipient pacifist movement in Europe, one way to cure that /and/ save our country some money would be pull at least some of our troops out of Europe.
September 10th, 2009 | 4:06 pm
I am somewhat confused as to why this situation is inherently ‘bleak’. Is pacifism considered prima facie objectionable for some reason? I get the feeling that, along with many interesting and sensible posts, this blog very often reverts to some sort of commonly-assumed neo-conservative political dogma which is never explained or justified.
September 10th, 2009 | 4:20 pm
I just find it facinating that we worship a God who, when he came to earth in human form, never practiced self defense or violence, and yet we insult pacifists.
September 10th, 2009 | 4:58 pm
Interesting information. I wonder how many Muslims were included in the survey. I confess a certain amount of skepticism with the data. The cultural dynamics on the ground are probably more fluid than appears by this data.
I think an interesting question to Europeans might be: Would you be willing to fight a war to save the United States?
September 11th, 2009 | 8:48 am
If a commitment to pacifism is to be respected, those holding this view must hold that they desire not to be rescued should they find themselves under attack from persons with evil intent. They must be able to truthfully state that, should their children be in danger from those who wish them harm, they should not and would not physically resist. They must support the idea that persons who are held in bondage by a tyrannical government must be left in that bondage if all attempts at civil discussion and negotiation fail. Persons who believe all this must be respected as having the courage of their convictions. The danger is that one might believe these things only when other people are the victims of human cruelty and aggression. We must at least consider the testimony of a person who survived the death camps of World War II: “The most beautiful music I ever heard was the sound of United States troops approaching the concentration camp where I was being held.” A committed pacifist must be willing to desire that the only “music” he would want to hear in such a situation is silence.
September 11th, 2009 | 11:00 am
War is just another way of keeping the rich in control of the money market. However we need laws and it takes money to make laws so you go to school become a lawyer (Liar) and you are licenced to take money from the poor. Money is the root of all evil.
Remember Jesus Christ what he did to the jews in the temple,he kicked them out. right?.
Then he said from the other side of his mouth “Give to Ceasar what belongs to him saying it’s okay to rob the poor No?
September 11th, 2009 | 2:11 pm
“Remember Jesus Christ what he did to the jews in the temple,hekicked them out.right?” from the recent post by “Paul Henry Dallaire”. Jesus expelled certain Jewish people from the temple because they were engaging in commercial activity; they were “moneychangers”. If he had expelled all the faithful Jewish people who were there, he would have had to expel himself as well, since of course he was an observant Jew. That is the reason he was in attendance at the temple. “Give unto Caesar” was one-half of an admonition to pay one’s taxes while not offering man the worship due to God.
September 14th, 2009 | 11:21 am
As someone who straddles the line between pacifism and not, I find it interesting (and disheartening) that those who oppose pacifism (some of whom find its having adherents disheartening) feel that the burden is somehow on pacifists to justify their pacifism, giving all kinds of real world examples that make pacifism seem onerous. But the Lord God, in human form, specifically asked that we turn the other cheek and allowed Himself to be killed rather than fight against those unjustly persecuting Him; there seems to be an extraordinarily strong prime facie case for pacifism that I have yet to see an opponent of pacifism deal with adequately. Tossing out real world examples is nice, I suppose, but it doesn’t really compare to the Word of Christ. I’d love to see someone take Christ seriously on this point and come up with a coherent argument against pacifism, but until I do, I think I shall remain on the fence, regularly leaning towards pacifism. Given the relatively clear facial meaning of Christ’s words, the burden must remain on the anti-pacifists to justify their stance from a Christian perspective.
There is a profound argument to be made that the worst thing to happen in Church history was the militarism that entered Christianity through Constantine; it fundamentally changed the rules of the game without ever really dealing with Christ’s call to love your enemies and turn the other cheek.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact