이라크 전쟁의 결정과정에서 증폭한 전(全) 세계 차원의 반미주의에서 공통적으로 발견되는 정서적 기재는 ‘반전, 평화론’에 기초하고 있음에 비해, 각국이 정부 차원에서 제기하는 미국에 대한 문제점은 전쟁결정을 이끌어내는데 있어서 미국이 보인 일방주의적 외교행태에 초점이 모아지는 경향을 보인다. 심리적 우월감에 바탕을 둔 유럽의 반미나, 역사적･종교적 반목의 토대 위에 누적된 중동의 반미나, 혹은 정치･경제 개혁의 실패로 인한 좌절감에서 비롯된 제3세계의 반미와는 달리, 한국의 경우는 한국이 거쳐 온 특수한 경험에서 비롯되어 최근에 부각된 현상으로 이해할 수 있다. 그러나 반미주의에 대한 대처방안을 결정짓는 본질적 요인은 어느 국가를 막론하고 국익의 극대화를 전제로 한 대미관계(對美關係)에 있음을 직시해야 한다.

Extending the war on terror to Iraq was not well received by the international community. Even major allies and friendly countries raised questions regarding the war rationale. Given lingering violence, and uncertainty about the future Iraqi nation, growing criticism about the causes of war has spurred the indictment of U.S. policy and strategy in the international society as a whole, at least at the public level. Anti-Americanism in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia is particularly worthwhile to analyze because they are crucial for America’s strategic interests. During the Cold War, countries in these regions were valuable clients for the United States and the former Soviet Union. At present, they are even more important due to geo-strategic location, economic importance, population size, and potential for regional integration. By analysing the origins and characteristics of Anti-Americanism in the three regions, the author shows how the United States should modify its strategy to reduce Anti-Americanism and further stabilize international relations. It should be noted that the international society’s collaboration with the U.S. on Iraq has been mainly out of interest-based expediency, as opposed to whole-hearted understanding and mutual respect. This finding points to the inherent limitations of an American-led hegemonic order over the long term. If the United States does not develop more authentic bilateral and multilateral partnerships based upon mutual national interests and pragmatic compromise, it sows the seeds of long-term instability and divergence within the European, Middle Eastern, and Asian regions, along elite/mass lines, and between nations in terms of power balancing.

Extending the war on terror to Iraq was not well received by the international community. Even major allies and friendly countries raised questions regarding the war rationale. Given lingering violence, and uncertainty about the future Iraqi nation, growing criticism about the causes of war has spurred the indictment of U.S. policy and strategy in the international society as a whole, at least at the public level. Anti-Americanism in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia is particularly worthwhile to analyze because they are crucial for America’s strategic interests. During the Cold War, countries in these regions were valuable clients for the United States and the former Soviet Union. At present, they are even more important due to geo-strategic location, economic importance, population size, and potential for regional integration. By analysing the origins and characteristics of Anti-Americanism in the three regions, the author shows how the United States should modify its strategy to reduce Anti-Americanism and further stabilize international relations. It should be noted that the international society’s collaboration with the U.S. on Iraq has been mainly out of interest-based expediency, as opposed to whole-hearted understanding and mutual respect. This finding points to the inherent limitations of an American-led hegemonic order over the long term. If the United States does not develop more authentic bilateral and multilateral partnerships based upon mutual national interests and pragmatic compromise, it sows the seeds of long-term instability and divergence within the European, Middle Eastern, and Asian regions, along elite/mass lines, and between nations in terms of power balancing.

Anti-Americanism, Anti-American sentiment, Iraqi War, globalization, unilateralism, democratization