Let this begin with an admission. The subject pains the writer and therefore, he would prefer not to have to write the essay. Generally a topic one elaborates elicits pleasure as it takes shape. In this case the sensation is vinegary. Thus only the intellectual commitment to causes that by definition transcend personal preferences, furnish the energy to proceed.

The recent experience that triggered this piece had its venue in Hungary. In many ways the locale is not decisive in determining the content and the conclusions that issue from it. What happened could have occurred anywhere in the “West’s” new “East.” Here the term “Europe” has been consciously avoided. In what most Americans still mean under the word, namely Western Europe, the barbs connected to the arguments reconstructed would have been more poisonous and the arrows carrying them laden with supplementary energy.

Let us begin with what the title refers to as the “myth.” America’s myth of convenience is that the “new Europe” is on her side while the country is being deserted by “old Europe” that the US alienated by saving it repeatedly. While it would be comforting if it would be so, the sad fact is that on the whole, the “new Europe” is not so inclined when the going gets tough with the US. This gap between the desired and the actual is no accident. The “filter of reality” is, therefore, essential.

For the purpose of a discussion, a (science) Ph.D. friend, who lives in the West, brought a group together in his vacation home. The truly native participants need introduction. They consisted of another science Ph.D. and of a Professor, who is a hospital director and heart specialist of repute. Both share the honor of membership in the National Academy. The latter’s wife, an MD, also participated. The Ph.D. had extensive living experience abroad. It began when as an eleven-year-old he was a POW in US custody. Then he spent years outside the “Socialist Block,” for he was delegated to serve as an expert, mainly in Geneva, in an UN-affiliated body. Describing the MD it is to be noted that the man is strongly religious.

Triggered by the crisis of her Red-Green coalition, the foreseen topic was Germany. Within seconds this subject got side-lined and the focus fell on the USA. That was the point where I chose to become a silent observer intent to suck up uncensored views for subsequent use. It is to be assumed that only my host -- who shares my world-view and knows my vocation -- understood the strategic concept behind my tactical comportment as a grey mouse.

In some ways the surprising thing about the lively exchange of perceptions was that there was no overriding local color to it. Except for a few asides and referrals to past events, the very cosmopolitan “locals” -- interrupted by the skeptical questions of my host -- sounded much like the fashionable America-bashers of Western Europe. This should be something of a surprise. What used to be the Outer Empire of the USSR was, except for geography, in everything that determines life, further from “Europe” than Tasmania is geographically. Nothing is revenged more vociferously than good deeds. However, Hungary’s region never got American help. One would, therefore, assume it not to have developed the resentment that fuels the desire to retaliate as in the case of the French after ‘45 and lately the Germans.

The prejudices voiced were “standard.” That suited them for evaluation without needing reconstruction prior to an evaluation. Only one outrageous point departed from the mold cast by local PC. It came from the MD who revealed, with others seconding her that, she would have voted for Kerry. For this the reason given was that he had a European background which furnished a civilizing influence. His ancestors’ recent immigration makes him “sympathetic” and could be taken as a sign of culture lacked by Bush the bloke. This was the point where I briefly fell out of my role. I proved to be unable to withhold that by this standard Szálasi, Hungary’s Hitler, should also find approval, having been of (Armenian) immigrant stock.

Such views my reader might take as pertaining to a marginal issue that inadvertently degenerates into the ridiculous. Let me submit that, while we are talking about marginal symptoms, these harken back to roots that are significant.

The distorted image depicting the US has several sources. One issues from the current weakness of Europe. Originally the feebleness was only military to which, currently, an economic dimension is being added. Europe is not only wanting in power-terms, the reaction to the new economy of globalization is equally feeble. Overcoming these gaps is currently unlikely, as the will to do so is lacking. Therefore American successes are not an example to follow, but due to their accomplishments, a humiliating provocation. A further component of the hostility is that, instead of making the effort to cope with the US by catching up to surpass her, hammering America into the ground gains favor. In Hungary and her likes, the very fact of the US’ leading position is, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary, a proof of an intent to dominate and to exploit. The fact-defying assumption finds support in a very real but subjectively interpreted past. The small countries of the zone in which Hungary is located have during the past been under the domination of major powers. All have used their muscle to squeeze the peoples that fell in their sphere of influence. This activates a Pavlovian reflex. The US, being “top nation,” is in a position to do whatever the Germans and the Russians have done. In the light of local experience, if the Americans can oppress they must be bullies, because all others powers in a comparable position have been oppressors.

Thus, ignoring experience, it is no surprise that in both Europes the view that the US (and Israel) is the major threat to world peace prevails. No change in American foreign policy will make this impression fade. Europe happens to find the thesis of America’s threat to global security a convenient dogma. Accepting the notion enables her to see threats, such as North Korea and a nuclear Iran, through the filter of equivalency. These regimes might be up to no good. But so is America in case it undertakes to mobilize against them, while it rates as unreliable if it desists from acting. Naturally, should containment fail, the US’ ineffectiveness will be the cause. The pleasant upshot: Europe needs to do nothing. Take the case of the EU’s own mild sanctions in 2003 against Cuba for its hard line towards its dissidents. Socialist Spain removed Europe from even appearing to be close to the US in the firefight between Castro and Washington by suspending the implementation of her sanctions in the interest of a “constructive dialogue.” Since then -- what a shock! -- persecution continues. So does the suspension. No surprise. All considered, not a bad situation: nothing is done and the independence from cowboy America is maintained.

Listening to Europeans it quickly dawns on you that much of the problem is compounded by ignorance of the US’ modus operandi and by a tendency to misinterpret much that is connected to her. A case in point came about when the group voiced the idea that America’s barefootedness is natural as it is a young country. Whether a long history and wise, proper and decent comportment on the world scene correlate, is open to debate. As a secret observer the writer refrained from provoking it. The same is true regarding the consideration that if you take measures by comparing unbroken political traditions, the US wins easily. She happens to have, since the acceptance of her constitution, by far the oldest system of them all.

Misunderstanding -- being a category separate from “not knowing” -- reinforces pre-conceived images. When the discussion shifted to America’s desire to grab the world’s resources, the former pre-teen POW found confirmation in the American soldiers’ who took his cap. You and I might surmise that the motive was not pecuniary gain but the collection of memorabilia. Within that category, parts of a child’s adult uniform are likely to score high. Also from this Gent came the observation that at the UN, by innuendo due to Washington’s efforts, there are too many Americans. Here obviously a Soviet block effort, to infiltrate with politically screened personnel, who de facto represented the Kremlin’s interests, is applied, assuming equivalence, to the US. What a field-day it would be for the media from the NYT to PBS, if Washington’s efforts to inject its agents in the world organization’s civil service could be unmasked! A society contributing 22% of the UN’s budget and generating about a quarter of global GNP, and one that also produces excellent post-graduates, is naturally likely to fill a lot of slots without its government’s octopus arms heaving its citizens into openings. Actually, America’s threat to the UN is not kidnapping it to be used as an instrument, but in abandoning it.

As disappointing as opinions such as those regurgitated here might be, their main impact on American and Atlantic security does not end with the current shaky state of the alliance. Assuredly, the matter is serious, it acts as a brake on the conduct of foreign affairs, and it demands that those relationships that by now have only tradition to recommend them, be reassessed. However, the thought that emerged in the course of the discussion took a turn in an entirely different direction. My insight had been that the main problem is not the tone and the content of talks such as the one I was involved in. Ultimately, the efficacy of US policy serving the national interest and protecting the freer part of the world is decided on her home front. That is why I imagined the presence of a largely apolitical American at the table. How would he react? The US must be doing something perennially and knowingly wrong to provoke hostile reactions. This is also the wide-spread logic behind the idea that the outrage of 9/11 must have its roots in an even greater inequity. “Cleaning up America’s act,” stroking those who snap at her hand might just be the solution. Precisely this “Europeanizing” of US policy constitutes the major danger. America can easily overbid Europe with concessions aimed at buying cooperation. If, however, the reaction is contempt -- as in Pyongyang’s armament program -- the threatening question is this: who will defend the US the way America is ultimately likely to cover her allies, once conciliation leads to confrontation?