By T.R. Reid Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, December 17, 2000; Page A36

LONDON, Dec. 16 –– George W. Bush has been a jet fighter pilot, a business owner, and chief executive of a state bigger than most European countries. But across Europe, the president-elect is known primarily for something else: "He's the world champion executioner," said former French justice minister Robert Badinter. "He is a horrible symbol of your mania for the death penalty."

"What we know about the new president," echoed Claudia Roth, a member of the German Parliament, "is just two things. He is the son of President Bush, and he has sent 150 people to their death in Texas, including the mentally ill."

However successful the president-elect may be in his push for "reconciliation and healing" back home, he is facing political fire in Europe because of his close identification with a practice that people here widely consider barbaric. On a continent where capital punishment has been designated an abuse on par with torture and genocide--all three are banned by the European Convention on Human Rights, signed by 34 countries--George W. Bush is seen as one of its leading proponents.

It is no passing concern here. Most U.S. executions get more coverage in the European media than at home. Students hold noisy campus rallies denouncing Texas, the state that leads the nation in executions. European politicians regularly cross the Atlantic to meet with death-row inmates, amid great publicity back home.

Accordingly, some death-penalty opponents have welcomed the Texas governor's political promotion on the theory that it will make their case more visible. "From a campaigning perspective, it's useful to have the most identifiable villain in the White House," said Chris Stalker of the British branch of Amnesty International. Stalker said Bush will "have a lot of trouble on this when he comes here" in the form of demonstrations.

In a recent conversation, a German diplomat said both officials and the public in his country are deeply troubled by the number of people executed in Texas and the issue of capital punishment is likely to continue to dog Bush in Europe. He said the issue is likely to sufficiently animate the public to bring people on to the streets when Bush visits, and predicted that European politicians will raise the issue in meetings with the new president.

Most of the criticism in Europe comes from the political left, but this is an issue on which conservatives, too, tend to criticize the United States. When a 6-year-old shot and killed a first-grade classmate in Michigan in February, the arch-conservative British tabloid the Sun editorialized that the most likely American response would be to build a kiddie-size electric chair. The Daily Mail, the farthest right of the British newspapers, noted acidly in a profile of Bush last week that he is "best known for signing 153 death warrants."

Dan Bartlett, a Bush spokesman, said the president-elect looks forward to working with foreign leaders despite the disagreement on capital punishment. "Governor Bush believes that capital punishment ultimately saves lives and reduces crime," Bartlett said.

Bush "was sworn to uphold the laws of the state of Texas and he took his responsibility with regard to the death penalty very seriously, and performed the duties that he was sworn to uphold," Barlett said. "He understands that people can respectfully disagree on the issue, but he remains steadfast in his belief that it can reduce crime and save lives."

Those who disagree in Europe are not always so respectful.

Consider the repartee of Jeff and Stacey Lardburger, a fictional American couple who appear on the satirical British TV show "Big Breakfast." The Lardburgers fit all the classic European stereotypes of Americans: They are fat, crude and ignorant, and they argue all the time. Last week, Jeff Lardburger hurled a new threat at his wife: "Button it . . . or I'll sendya to Texas and putya in the chair."

A front page cartoon in the British newspaper the Guardian on Thursday showed a stockbroker with the message "Bush wins" on his computer screen sending frantic investment advice to clients: "Buy Lethal Injections!"

There are clearly political points to be won in Europe by opposing capital punishment in the United States, which is one reason politicians here routinely cross the Atlantic to meet the condemned.

When French Education Minister Jack Lang was preparing to run for mayor of Paris, he traveled to Texas to talk with convicted murderer Odell Barnes Jr., who was executed on March 1, still declaring his innocence. Similarly, Germany's Roth traveled to Arizona last year to talk with two convicted murderers, Karl and Walter LaGrand, before their execution.

Roth said she took particular interest in the case because the LaGrands were born in Germany. But they had spent their entire adult lives in the United States and were unable to converse with her in German when she arrived.

No major political party in Europe supports the death penalty--hardly surprising, since opinion polls show that most voters across the continent oppose the practice. Many here are simply baffled that the United States, with its reputation for defending human rights around the world, supports it so strongly.

"I am regularly asked to speak about this at [European] universities," said Badinter, who ended capital punishment in France in 1981, when he was justice minister. "I wish you could see the students, how perplexed they are, how amazed they are, that the U.S. permits this barbarous deed.

"After all, U.S. pop culture is part of their life. U.S. technology is on their desks. But when it comes to the death penalty, the U.S. is not a leader. Your country stands with China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in number of executions. And the students say, 'What the hell has the U.S. to do with those four dictatorships?' "

On dozens of occasions, the European Union has formally protested specific executions, usually those involving youthful or mentally deficient defendants. U.S. diplomats in Europe say they are deluged with complaints about capital punishment, some from organized political groups and many from citizens who have read about an upcoming execution in the newspaper.

In response, the U.S. Embassy in Paris hands out an explanation of the issue that is defensive in tone. "The death penalty is an emotional and controversial subject," it says. "Public opinion polls have shown that 66 percent of the American public support the death penalty. On the other hand, some major American organizations, such as the American Bar Association and the Texas Catholic Bishops, have called for a moratorium on its use on humanitarian and human rights grounds."

"There are more homicides in Texas than in Britain," said Owen Williams, a death-penalty opponent who rejects the deterrence argument. "So where's the deterrent effect? And there is no social value in state-sponsored murder."

One result of the anti-Bush fervor on this point is that Europeans tend to see many more news reports about Texas executions than Americans do.

Most U.S. news organizations paid little attention last month when Texas was preparing to execute a convicted rapist and murderer named Johnny Paul Penry. In Europe, though, the event was major news, partly because Penry was said to be retarded--Britain's Press Association reported that he still believed in Santa Claus--and partly because he was to be the 150th person executed since Bush became governor.

Britain's second-biggest daily newspaper, the Mirror, devoted its first six pages completely to this story (headline: "The Texas Massacre"). On page 7, it ran an editorial: "Bush makes no apology for his hideous track record. And disturbingly, he has mass support from Americans, driven by their out-of-control gun culture and blood lust for retribution."

Correspondent Peter Finn contributed to this story from Berlin.

© 2000 The Washington Post Company

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Answers

Heh. Our cousins from across the pond have always been a bit jealous and resentful of America, because after all, THEIRS is the land of Oxford and Cambridge, the Sorbonne, Charlemagne and King John, really good food, wine and tea, and cullcha, cullcha, CULLCHA out the wazoo, don'cha know.

Ah, we poor, backwards Americans. It's distressing, really, that we should have so much power, so much success, so much wealth, and yet, refuse to embrace their vision of what an "enlightened" society should be. There ain't no justice.

Consequently, criticizing us as a bunch of bucolic barbarians gives them great inner comfort that yes, Virginia, they really DO matter in the grand scheme of things. They're NOT just an odd collection of tiny little "countries" (any one of which would fit inside Texas or Alaska with room for several football games -- OUR brand, not their contrary pretend version), they represent History. Enlightenment. CULL-CHAAA.

(Of course, adding to their secret mortification is the fact that France -- and most of continental Europe, mind you -- would still be a German vassal if it hadn't been for this bunch of hoosiers, rustics and bumpkins coming to their aid against those PARAGON products of European "enlightenment," Hitler and Mussolini.)

Now.

If by this, you are to deduce that I'm not just shattered (or even overly concerned) by this criticism from my cousins o'er the pond, and what they think of the fact that I actually (*gasp!*) (*horrors!*) AGREE with the death penalty for certain cases, or AGREE (*oh,no!*) with the right of individuals to own deadly, barbaric Sticks That Go Bang, guess what?

You'd be dead-on right. :)

Shoot, the English haven't yet even learned how to cook beef properly. As soon as they master that skill, I'll let them criticize my choice of President. :)

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Stephen -

As someone not of the American persuasion (British-born, now living in Canada) I couldn't resist commenting on a couple of your comments.

>>Ah, we poor, backwards Americans. It's distressing, really, that we should have so much power, so much success, so much wealth, and yet, refuse to embrace their vision of what an "enlightened" society should be. There ain't no justice. <<

That's actually a pretty fair observation, although I think you left out what really gets under Europeans' skins; namely that America and Americans are (with a few notable exceptions) almost completely ignorant about life beyond the borders of the 50 states, and they don't appear to pay any price for this ignorance..

One simply can't shut out the outside world in Europe. Geography, politics, history and commerce demand that one pays attention to events beyond one's own country. In America, by contrast, the outside world rarely impinges on the day-to-day life of the average citizen.

>>(Of course, adding to their secret mortification is the fact that France -- and most of continental Europe, mind you -- would still be a German vassal if it hadn't been for this bunch of hoosiers, rustics and bumpkins coming to their aid against those PARAGON products of European "enlightenment," Hitler and Mussolini.) <<

Ummmmm......you guys didn't actually come to France and Britain's aid until December 1941. (Yes, I know, you can cite the lend-lease and snippets of FDR naval co-operation, but they didn't amount to much in the greater scheme of things.) Indeed, if Joe Kennedy had had his way you folks might never have got involved at all!

I believe Britain declared war on Germany on 1 Sep 1939. Canada followed suit on 3 Sep, and backed it up with men and materiel to the UK. The war might have been over by December 1941 if the RAF (staffed by many pilots trained in Canada) had not thwarted Hitler's "Operation Sealion", the code name for the planned invasion of Britain.

Just my C$0.02

JC

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

Hey, Johnny! Where've y' been? :)

what really gets under Europeans' skins; namely that America and Americans are (with a few notable exceptions) almost completely ignorant about life beyond the borders of the 50 states, and they don't appear to pay any price for this ignorance..

What price do you feel we should pay for this ignorance? The United States is a VERY large country. While Canada has us beat in land area (something of which, I'll admit, most Americans are ignorant[g]), in both area *and* population, we are several times larger than the Roman Empire at its height, Hitler and Timurlane's empires at their heights, and larger than the European Union at present.

We are 50 separate, originally-sovereign states, each with significant cultural differences, united in a single nation. For me in Alabama to be concerned with affairs in Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee and (my home state of) North Carolina is really only a step removed from a Brit worrying about what the government is up to in Germany or France.

Ummmmm......you guys didn't actually come to France and Britain's aid until December 1941 ...

What you say is absolutely correct, and I would NEVER take anything away from Britain's -- or Canada's, or Australia's, or India's -- accomplishments in WWII, especially the Battle of Britain.

I'm speaking of the eventual OUTCOME -- simply put, who would have "won." I'm enough of a student of history (not to mention an admirer of the UK in general) to believe that Hitler could never have "conquered" England (or Canada, for that matter) in the classic sense. But there is no doubt that the shape of Europe and European politics would have been completely different absent our involvement.

The sad truth is, Britain lacked the capacity to overthrow the German Reich by itself, which is *WHY* Churchill wept in relief when the US *did* become involved.

Without a fully-involved two front war to drain her resources, Germany likely would have beaten the Soviet Union. At that point, England would have had no choice but to come to terms with the Nazis.

And that was my specific point above: under this scenario, France WOULD have remained under German control. (For that matter, so would have Norway and Finland.) I'm not aware of any historian who is personally familiar with conditions in the 1930's and 40's who would argue otherwise.

(My point there, in italics, is that there is a crop of younger history buffs coming along nowdays who, having no personal knowledge of just how dire the situation really was in the 1940's, want to claim otherwise.)

(I read old histories of the war, those written by people who were there and "smelled the smoke" themselves. The best I've read, by the way, is a tome entitled Total War written by a Brit and a Canadian. They agree with me fully.)

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

Maybe we should have stayed home Johnny. The rewrite would probably include our repelling a German invasion of Canada. Just think, we might still be there.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

YES!--to everyone above.

So many conflicting thoughts.

Even though I'm one of those 'bumpkins' now, I wasn't always. My mother was English, my father's parents were Carpatho-Russian and I spent the first 23 years of my life being insulted 'round the world as an American military dependent.

Maybe if the world gave America some credit for doing good or at least having it's heart in the right place, we would listen to constructive criticism.

Oh how I know we entered WWII very late. But don't ever forget, Johnny, that those young men in Pearl Harbor were sacrificed so that we could help England. America hasn't forgotten that.

Back to the article---I am not happy that Europe views our President- elect as an executioner. And I wonder why his zeal in executing 150 people was not a larger issue in the campaign. Somehow I got sidetracked by his total lack of comprehension of his proposed programs instead of considering what the 'man from Midland, Texas' had actually done.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

Pam,

Let me grant you this: some of the executions that were performed in Texas concerned me, too. I'm not so quick to blame them on Bush, however, because others had to convict and sentence these people before Bush's failure to grant clemency should even become an issue.

And for that matter, Bill Clinton held the Presidential Pardon, and could have used HIS authority. He was certainly aware of these more controversial executions, and specifically chose not to get involved. Is he not just as much to blame?

My little ditty was intended to show that Europe has always criticized us. At first, it was our "vulgar experiment" (government of and by the people, which was anathema to the hyper-inbred royal families of Europe); then it was slavery. Our government worked, we got rid of slavery and they simply moved to the next topic.

Likewise, if we were to outlaw the death penalty, they'd find some other reason to take jabs at us. They are jealous and resentful of us, plain and simple.

Now, on the death penalty itself, we could have a lively discussion. To me, the problem isn't the penalty, it's the nagging questions of whether the convicted is truly guilty.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

I'm sensing an awful lot of bitterness here -- on a number of sides.

Lest we forget that, barring a descendancy of full Native American blood, we ALL came from **somewhere else**. Kind of how it all started. (Even the "Daughters of the American Revolution" trace European ancestry -- and isn't the irony just beautiful?)

We (Americans) are painfully ignorant of anything beyond our borders. And by "borders" I do not necessarily mean "national borders". We are not required to learn a second language, we are BARELY taught about "other countries" in our schools (with the notable exception of where we are/were "involved"), we generally frown upon virtually anything non-American, unless it SERVES US in some way.

And those of us who DO show an appreciation for things-European (food, films, art, etc.) are labelled (GASP!) Dreaded Evil Liberals and actually looked down upon as "intelligencia" ("intelligencia" being used as a four-letter word).

Then we whine, moan and complain because "we get no respect" for all the good deeds we've done (and continue doing), despite the fact that lately, pretty much the ONLY reason we do any "good deeds" at all is if it's in our national interest to do so.

I suppose we'll be putting that "compassionate conservative" label to the test, won't we?

Why is it seemingly OK for the USA to interfere in OTHER nations' internal affairs, but OH MY GAWD!! DO NOT let those very same nations have a NEGATIVE OPINION of us. The sheer AUDACITY of "those people".

We are, as a nation, a bunch of hypocrites. Again, the irony is absolutely magnificent.

Is this 100%? Of course not. But, IMO, it is a "majority" (though we have discovered that a "majority" doesn't necessarily mean anything).

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

Oops, forgot the "other side".

Yes, there does appear to be alot of resentment, jealousy, call-it-what-you-will from other nations. After all, that "system" they told us was basically hogwash seems to be working. Of course they're going to jump on and overplay every perceived slip-up (e.g., this election).

To the Europeans, capital punishment IS barbaric. (Heh, to alot of Americans it is as well; go figure.) So this is one of those "perceived slip-ups" they will run with -- over and over and over.

Sour grapes? Probably. I remember a conversation I had with a French guy several years ago. A friend and I were having dinner in a trendy little SoHo restaurant in NYC (the food was excellent, and oddly enough, it was reasonably-priced -- simply amazing). There were two guys at the table next to us (if you've ever been to or seen "trendy restaurants in SoHo, you realize that "the table next to you" might as well be part of your party; there are about 6" in between the tables), and my friend, Beth, started talking to one of them. Before long, the four of us were engaged in conversation. Turns out these two were French, working on contract in the USA, and their contract was up in another month. Then they were off to Asia (they weren't specific). We asked them how they liked it here. One loved it; he really didn't want to leave. But the other one couldn't say enough bad things about "us". He just went on and on and on -- and yes, it all sounded like "sour grapes", but we let him go on. As luck (?) would have it, I had just that day seen a report on the news about France owing us something to the tune of $30 billion dollars in loans, and it appeared they were defaulting on it (or something like that).

I ran with that. I mean, the venom this guy was spewing was beyond reason. Yes, there are many things not to like about us, but in the long run, there are so many more things to LIKE about us (yeah, I'm a bit partisan there). The look of sheer indignance on his face when I asked him why, if the French "hated us" so much, they were hypocritical enough to "borrow" billions of dollars, and then DEFAULT on the payments.

I felt I had made my point. His friend apologized for him. I bit them "adieu" and wished them well in "Asia".

I understand a lot of the resentment and "sour grapes". It's human nature. I'm not excusing it; just saying that I understand it. And some of it, IMO, is justified. After all, we took a system they said would NEVER work, and more or less, made it work.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

Trish,

You GO, girl. I think our schools ought to teach Latin again, like they used to. :)

("But teacher, ain't them Latts all dead now?" [g])

Only thing I'd add is that I *don't* get upset when furriners have a negative opinion of us. Actually, my problem is that I couldn't care less what they think.

I'm just a loveably incurable curmudgeon, I s'pose ... :)

Ah, I'm feelin' the Christmas spirit.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

Uh, stop the world -- you AGREE with *me*?!?! This is **ME**, Stephen, Dreaded Evil Liberal/Rush-Despiser Extraordinaire.

(Well, maybe not so "evil".)

It really IS the season for miracles ;-)

Only one thing -- you aren't OLD ENOUGH to be a "curmudgeon"; a Curmudgeon-In-Training, perhaps.....

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

Trish,

"If you will recall," he sniffed diffidently, "we agree on a wide range of things. We differed on this election and a few other things."

Hey, I'd still trust you to watch my cats. :)

(You'd have to know me and Sandy to know what a huge concession that is.[g])

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

In my opinion,

I suspect that cultures that are in an expansionist phase are more forgiving of violence, since expansion and domination require violence.

Europe has spent the past 50 years shedding its colonies and renouncing expansion. Europeans tend to see violence as brutal and savage, because they don't think they need violence to accomplish their cultural aims. As a side effect, when Europeans are confronted with the choice of going to war for anything but pure defense of their own territory, they don't.

Americans tend to favor the death penalty for the simple reason that they tend to accept violence as a valid option in dealing with a problem. Violence is accepted as morally neutral because maintaining strong moral scruples against violence would compromise our ability to go to war. The USA rarely hesitates to send troops anywhere in the world or to use violence to achieve its aims. And it never apologizes for doing so.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

That's an excellent point, Brian. What is "American culture"? When one asks a European this question, the usual response is "McDonald's" or "hamburgers" or "guns" or some other "symbol" of "Americana" in the eyes of the world.

We don't exactly have a "culture" as each European nation (or any other nation) does. We have a "mix of cultures" and sure, it's still developing.

I know I've found it incredibly difficult to "define American culture". Sad, really. But we're still kind of "the teenagers" of the world (we know everything, our "parents" are idiots, etc.). Most other nations have been around for a long, long time in comparison to us; with many retaining most of what they've had and been throughout the centuries. They're pretty much firmly established. We, OTOH, are the Great Experiment, and in some minds, The Jury's Still Out.

We're only on Century Number Three.....we've got a lot of "developing" to do in so many ways.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

>> What is "American culture"? <<

Patricia, I liked your question so much I started a new thread on the subject.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000