Why the U.S. Loves Calling Other Countries Names

Published in Xinhua
(China) on 22 April 2010
by Zhou Xinyu (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Anna Isaacson. Edited by Laura Berlinsky-Schine.
Recently, the website for the magazine "Foreign Policy" published an essay entitled “A Global V.I.R.U.S. of Instability.” The author remarks that the English names of the nations Venezuela, Iran and Russia form the acronym “VIRUS"; he posits that the three nations’ alliance against the U.S. poses a threat to the stability of the entire Western hemisphere. Foreign Policy writer Daniel W. Drezner commends the acronym’s creator, deeming it “catchy” and likely to “spread across the foreign policy community like . . . well, you know.” )

The U.S. has always liked to call other countries names. This new “VIRUS” acronym is similar to terms of the past such as “rogue state” and “axis of evil,” and it will go in and out of fashion just as those terms did. These terms enjoyed brief popularity during the recent neoconservative administration, but they are gradually moving into the wastebasket of history. Innumerable new terms move in to replace old ones. What doesn’t change is the U.S.’ love for making enemies.

After the U.S.’ rise to global dominance following WWII, American political leaders used “good versus evil” rhetoric liberally. To this day, Americans love to use words like “evil,” “rogue,” “imperial,” “dictatorship” and so forth.

The U.S.’s attitude of moral superiority is almost religious in its fervor. When the U.S. wants something from the international community, words like “international interests” and “power” are insufficient. The “good versus evil” rhetoric is the U.S.’ s way of justifying its actions on the international arena.

However, the name-calling is not random; in fact, it is quite calculated. For example, the term “totalitarian state” is used globally, but the U.S. will not pin it on its ally Saudi Arabia. Japan and South Korea are nicknamed “gateways to democracy,” but this is not a name the U.S. will bestow on Palestine and its democratically-elected Hamas, even though Palestine is in the Middle East where democracy is uncommon. Hamas opposes the U.S., and so it is classified as “terrorist” instead.

The name the U.S. bestows on a given country reveals its foreign policy interests there. Americans themselves know this, but they are masters of self-denial. One hand reaches for that which will fulfill self-interest, while the other sprinkles moralizing labels. The two hands do not touch.

Some labels reflect the U.S.’s foreign policy goals and thus can predict its behavior. It is therefore worthwhile for the U.S.’s allies to study and understand the terms the U.S. uses. For example the Bush administration’s term “axis of evil” foreshadowed the U.S.’ invasion of Iraq.

However, not all of these nicknames merit such serious consideration. The U.S. is a pluralist nation wherein many diplomatic and political goals compete for dominance. Generating new names and new terms attracts attention. As the proverb goes, “Doing well is not as good as singing well.” The U.S.’s think tanks and media sources must rely on “singing well” to make a living, and sometimes those institutions coin new terms simply to attract attention to themselves.

The real fascination is in the U.S.’s linguistic hegemony. Take this new term, “VIRUS.” If Georgia gave it to Russia, if Columbia gave it to Venezuela or if Iraq gave it to Iran, it probably would not appear in the global media. Unfortunately, because an American coined the term, it attracts the world’s attention.

This author has spent some time observing the offices of "Foreign Policy." The offices are clustered within a single building, sharing space with a diverse array of other organizations. Outside that building, along the busy Massachusetts Avenue, lie the offices of countless other D.C. think tanks, journals, magazines and other organizations, all attracting the attention of the world.


近日,美国《外交政策》杂志网站刊登了一篇题为《全球不稳定“病毒”》的文章,将委内瑞拉(Venezuela)、伊朗(Iran)和俄罗斯(Russia)三个国家的英文名称字母拼成“VIRUS”(病毒)一词,称三国结盟对抗美国并威胁整个西方秩序。美国《外交政策》杂志的专家丹尼尔·德雷兹内认为,他的同行戈福思所发明的这个专名“夺人眼目又琅琅上口”,因此,将会在美国政治学家圈内 “像病毒一样流行”。

美国人一向喜欢给别国贴标签。这个“病毒国家”的新说法,就跟之前的“流氓国家”、“邪恶轴心”如出一辙。后者在前几年美国新保守主义盛行的时代曾经名噪一时;如今时过境迁,已逐渐走进了历史的垃圾桶。旧词换去,新词辈出,美国人喜欢找敌人、戴黑帽、妖魔化的习惯还是不变。

贴标签带有强烈的道德色彩和爱憎情绪。第二次世界大战后,美国成为世界政治的主导,“正义对邪恶”这样的词汇,就经常挂在美国领导人的嘴边,像“邪恶”、“流氓”、“帝国”、“专制”这样的词,则是美国人的最爱,直到今天仍然如此。

从这个意义上来说,美国确实是一个有着特殊精神气质的国家,这种精神气质就是宗教式的道德优越感。美国要在国际上办什么事,像“国家利益”、“权力”这样的词都不足以说服自己,必须要代表正义向邪恶宣战,这样才能为自己的一切国际行为找到理由。
不过,美国人的道德标签并不会“乱贴一气”,背后还是要审时度势,精心算计。比如“极权国家”这样标签即便满世界飞,也不会贴到实行君主制的大盟友沙特阿拉伯身上;日本、韩国被授予的“民主桥头堡”称号,并不会同样送给通过民主选举上台的哈马斯——尽管巴勒斯坦是中东少有的民主制国家,可是哈马斯反对美国,自然属于“恐怖主义”势力。

换言之,美国给什么国家贴什么标签,在于和美国关系的亲疏友善,是否服从美国的国家利益。美国人自己也知道这回事,但是他们似乎有着把道德原则和国家利益两手抓的天赋,一边是国家利益至上,另一边是道德标签照贴,两边并行不悖。

有的标签反映了当时美国政治的主流倾向,可能决定美国一段时期内的外交政策走向,值得相关国家密切关注和研究。比如小布什政府上台提出的“邪恶轴心”,就为后来美国入侵伊拉克埋下了伏笔。

但是,并不是对所有的美式标签都值得人们那么认真。美国是一个多元化的国家,各种政治势力要想取得政治优势,需要相互竞争,新名词、新标签当然是吸引眼球的最好方法。俗话说“干得好不如唱的好”。美国的智库和媒体也是要靠“卖唱”吃饭的,有时一个新名词很大程度上只为赚吆喝。

因此,美式标签背后的魔力,实际上是美国的话语霸权。像“病毒”这个新发明,如果是格鲁吉亚送给俄罗斯、哥伦比亚送给委内瑞拉、伊拉克送给伊朗,可能都不会在全球媒体上出现。偏偏是美国人说出来,即使只是一本杂志,就足够引发全球关注。

笔者曾有幸到《外交政策》杂志社参观,几间不起眼的办公室,跟许多单位挤在一个楼上。楼外的马萨诸塞大街上,还云集着上千家同样大名鼎鼎的智库,在华盛顿这个算不上大都市的城市中心,牵动着全世界的眼球。(周鑫宇 中国人民大学国际关系学院博士)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: What’s Behind Donald Trump’s Latest Crypto Adventure?

Mexico: Trump vs. Cuba: More of the Same

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Spain: The New American Realism

Topics

Spain: The New American Realism

Mexico: Trump vs. Cuba: More of the Same

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Spain: Another Threat from Trump

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

Related Articles

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle