Gallup Finds Widespread Rejection of U.S. Leadership by NATO Publics

11th April 2019 Off By binary
start trading binary options

Reports That 23 of 27 U.S. Allies in NATO Disapprove of U.S. Leadership

Eric Zuesse

Gallup’s “Rating World Leaders: 2019” finds that:

Approval of U.S. leadership, among NATO allies, in which the publics in all 27 non-U.S. NATO countries answer the question

“Do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of the leadership of the United States?”

turns out to be:

——

POSITIVE VIEWS BY NATO ALLIES OF U.S. LEADERSHIP

Albania 69/20 (69% “Approve” 20% “Disapprove”)

Poland 49/30

Hungary 42/22

Romania 42/28

——

NEGATIVE VIEWS BY NATO ALLIES OF U.S. LEADERSHIP

Italy 36/57

Croatia 31/52

Czech 31/38

Denmark 31/65

Lithuania 28/41

Montenegro 28/39

Slovakia 27/56

France 27/65

UK 26/64

Bulgaria 23/34

Spain 22/73

Netherlands 21/77

Slovenia 21/74

Greece 19/57

Luxembourg 18/74

Germany 17/73

Belgium 16/74

Canada 16/79

Estonia 14/50

Portugal 14/74

Turkey 14/73

Latvia 13/55

Norway 12/87

——

For comparison, here were the figures from the prior “Rating World Leaders: 2018”:

POSITIVE VIEWS BY NATO ALLIES OF U.S. LEADERSHIP

Albania 72/15

Poland 56/24

Hungary 41/31

Romania 41/26

——

NEGATIVE VIEWS BY NATO ALLIES OF U.S. LEADERSHIP

Italy 45/48

Croatia 24/51

Czech 38/41

Denmark 29/65

Lithuania 33/44

Montenegro 25/49

Slovakia 37/44

France 25/65

UK 33/63

Bulgaria 28/47

Spain 26/67

Netherlands 21/74

Slovenia 24/69

Greece 18/56

Luxembourg 21/71

Germany 22/72

Belgium 20/73

Canada 20/76

Estonia 17/48

Portugal 12/69

Turkey 27/59

Latvia 21/51

Norway 13/83

MY COMMENTARY:

At least under the present U.S. Government, any sort of democratic NATO would either abandon its military alliance with the U.S., or else 23 of the 28 NATO member nations would individually abandon NATO altogether. How can a democratic nation be militarily allied with (much less dominated by) a Government that its own population despises?

Though NATO was set-up at the start to be the U.S.-led capitalistic military alliance against the communistic U.S.S.R., lots has changed since that time. Today’s NATO, as led by the U.S. Government, no longer has the support of the citizenries in 24 of the other 27 non-U.S. NATO-member nations. This means that the present U.S. Government is viewed as unfit to lead NATO, and maybe even as being unfit to be a military “ally” at all, of their own nation.

Of course, any NATO nation that’s not a democracy doesn’t represent its citizenry but merely controls them; and, if and where that is the case, continued U.S. leadership of NATO is no problem, because the public there are actually only subjects to be ruled, and not authentically citizens who rule their country.

Consequently, whether or not the present situation will result in most European nations abandoning their military alliance with the United States will depend upon the extent to which NATO member-nations are democratic, or else are, instead, aristocratic or “oligarchic.”

The present widespread rejection, by Europeans and Canadians, of the U.S. Government, has continued now for at least two years, and if America’s 2020 Presidential contest fails to oust the current U.S. regime, the likelihood that a break-up or even termination of NATO will happen fairly soon after Trump is re-elected would be high in any European nation that’s at all democratic. At least some nations will probably abandon NATO then. However, if, instead, the Democratic Party’s nominee wins, there is at least a reasonable chance that the non-U.S. NATO members will remain in what has become no longer the anti-communist alliance, but instead became simply the anti-Russian alliance, such as U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush privately, on 24 February 1990, instructed America’s vassal nations to be. That entire U.S. plan to conquer Russia could likely fail if Trump is re-elected. But if the Democratic nominee wins the U.S. Presidency, then the only way in which the U.S.-led permanent war against Russia and its allies could be stopped would be if the new Democratic President would openly condemn the permanent-war-for-permanent-‘peace’ policy that U.S. Presidents ever since at least the Presidency of Ronald Reagan have been pursuing and which has kept America’s military-industrial complex thriving. This would require election of a Democratic Presidential nominee who receives little or no campaign money from the military-industrial complex and from Wall Street. If the Democratic Party remains, like the Republican Party has always been since the end of World War II, totally dependent upon mega-donors, then there will virtually certainly continue to be “permanent war for permanent ‘peace’,” and America will therefore continue to rot.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Read more about eu binary options trading and CFD brokers