Few corporate brands enjoy the global reach that McDonald's has attained. The fast food chain has franchises in 118 countries. In Fast Food Nation, the author Eric Schlosser cited one marketing study that found that, around the world, "the Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross."

In normal times, a company would find this a good thing. But as antiwar protests all over the planet give vent to raw anti-American sentiment, the ubiquity and familiarity of McDonald's has made it a widespread target in recent days. In Quito, Ecuador, protesters burned a Ronald McDonald statue. In Paris, demonstrators smashed a McDonald's window. South Korean activists calling for an end to the war sought attention by scaling a McDonald's sign. Other McDonald's outlets — in Karachi, in Buenos Aires — have been ringed with police officers to stave off trouble.

Some opponents of the war have called for boycotts not just of McDonald's, but of a hodgepodge of well-known American brands — from Coca-Cola to American Express. A web site lists a couple of dozen targets, from usual suspects like Nike and Disney to more surprising names like Intel and Heinz.

Clearly demonstrators take things a step further when they actually attack a McDonald's outlet as if it were a de facto corporate viceroy. But does it make sense to make such a connection? "These are locally owned and staffed businesses," said Walt Riker, a McDonald's spokesman in Chicago, meaning that what demonstrators are really doing is hurting local entrepreneurs. "It may be an American brand, but these are truly neighborhood restaurants," he said, adding that most of the chain's 30,000 outlets, including more than 1,000 in France, have not experienced any problem.

The fact that protesters are drawn to the arches in their quest to gain attention is an interesting example of brand power working in reverse. Many marketing experts contend that "branding" is not really a logical process — that the most successful brands make an emotional connection with consumers. This seems to be true of brand backlashes as well. Under happier circumstances, the McDonald's name and imagery can stand as shorthand for a quick, dependable American-style meal. Right now it can be seen as standings for something else: the policies of the United States and its place in the world. These days, that is an emotional subject.

This appeared in the March 30, 2003, edition of The New York Times, following this short post.