I’ve marveled, on more than a few instances, at the Bush administration’s disinterest in and occasional outright hostility for diplomacy. No modern president has done more to alienate so many U.S. allies in such a short period of time.
During the buildup towards war in Iraq, the Bush administration worked to bully its way through negotiations at the United Nations, using threats and intimidation with allies, undermining relationships built and cultivated over several decades.
Part of me assumed, with the war’s major battles completed, Bush might extend olive branches to these countries whose relations with the U.S. have become strained. Just the opposite it true — Bush is vindictively (and childishly) trying to punish our allies who opposed war in Iraq.
Yesterday, for example, was the 5th of May, or in Mexico, Cinco de Mayo. It is a widely celebrated holiday in Mexico, commemorating the day the Mexican military defeated a French army in 1862.
In 2001 and 2002, Bush’s White House hosted lavish Cinco de Mayo festivities, complete with dancers, mariachis, prominent Mexican-American entertainers, and public officials from Mexico’s U.S. embassy.
This year, the White House quietly released a two-paragraph statement, offering the president’s “best wishes for a memorable celebration.” Unlike Bush’s first two Cinco de Mayo messages made to great fanfare, the president did not even mention Mexican President Fox in his announcement.
Yesterday was also supposed to be the day Bush held a brief summit with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, in a meeting scheduled well in advance of the war. Bush ended up canceling the trip, saying he was too busy with the war to meet with Chretien.
Oddly, though, Bush didn’t look too busy yesterday. He traveled to Arkansas to tell a bunch of hand-picked Republican activists how great his tax cut plan is, and he had plenty of time to visit with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a guest at Bush’s ranch over the weekend, who just happened to support the U.S. war in Iraq. The White House also announced it has found the time to meet with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the White House tomorrow, and quite coincidentally, Aznar was also on board with Bush’s Iraqi invasion.
The message was not lost on Canadians. The Toronto Star described Bush’s move as “rubbing salt in Canada’s wound,” and wondered aloud how the president had “time for Little Rock, not Ottawa.”
If this were simply a matter of Bush’s pettiness and begrudging tendencies as a world “leader,” it would be easy to dismiss as symbolically significant of an administration with poor diplomatic skills, but nothing more.
Unfortunately, however, Bush is also going out of his way to make sure that official U.S. policies also reflect his ongoing grudge against allies who had the audacity to question the wisdom of an unprovoked attack against Iraq.
War skeptics such as Chile, New Zealand, and Thailand — each allies of the United States — have all suddenly found that free-trade agreements with the U.S. that had been cleared for implementation before the war are suddenly tied up in the federal bureaucracy. Moreover, Otto Reich, Bush envoy to the Americas, recently warned several Caribbean countries that their opposition to the war might bring adverse “consequences,” according to a report in The New Republic.
Remember during the 2000 campaign when Bush promised a U.S. foreign policy based on “humility” that would “strengthen our alliances” around the world? Of all of Bush’s broken campaign promises, this one might be the most dramatic.
What’s particularly disappointing is realizing just how easy it would be for the Bush administration to choose a more effective method of dealing with U.S. allies. Instead of bullying our neighbors who disagreed with us on the utility of war, Bush could reach out to these countries, emphasizing points where we share common interests and values. Rather than intimidating these nations and their leaders regarding a war that is already over, we could seek to move on past our differences towards a more fruitful and productive future. We don’t have to agree on war, Bush could say, but we can certainly agree on far more than we disagree.
Bush, however, sees it differently and is choosing to do the exact opposite. He saw countries question his choice for war and now he wants to punish them, knowing these allies need the U.S. far more than the U.S. needs them.
The president’s callous disregard for international alliances will be his lasting legacy. For a president whose strength is supposed to be foreign policy, the administration has made one inept blunder after another when it comes to dealing with countries that used to be our friends.