Fred Hiatt has an interesting column in the Washington Post this morning about Bush’s critics arguing overlooking the fact that Clinton took several of the same steps when it came to international relations as his successor.
As Hiatt explained, critics argue that “Bush had doomed his chances by arrogantly thumbing his nose at the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.”
“It would be wonderful if that were the whole truth,” Hiatt argued, “because it would mean that ending America’s isolation wouldn’t be all that hard…. Unfortunately, the problem is deeper-seated.” As the column noted, Clinton also withheld support for the same treaties, though he “didn’t do it as arrogantly” as Bush.
In other words, Hiatt is arguing that Bush’s critics are wrong to peg international resentment on Bush since Clinton dismissed the same treaties Bush did.
My reaction is that Hiatt is missing the point, or I should say, missing two points.
First, Hiatt seems to be assailing a straw man that doesn’t exist. Bush has alienated the world, we critics insist, but not simply by rejecting the ICC, Kyoto and the ABM Treaty. That may be part of some criticisms, but as Hiatt himself noted, the “problem is deeper-seated.”
Bush did a lot more to annoy friends and foes than simply blowing off three treaties. There was also the Biological Weapons Accord, negotiated in good faith for six years and endorsed by over 100 nations around the world, which Bush promptly threw in the trash. There was also the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Small Arms Accord, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Land Mine Treaty — all of which the U.S. had worked for years to shape and all of which Bush carelessly discarded after taking office. (My personal favorite was when Bush at first endorsed, then denounced the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a U.N. accord which has been ratified over 160 nations, leaving America is a small group of countries that include Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.)
Similarly, Bush sent a right-wing delegation to a May 2001 U.N. conference on the rights of children, at which U.S. representatives undermined our European allies’ efforts to advocate for greater health benefits, education, and increased safety for children, while we instigated a polarizing debate over sex education and abortion.
While we’re at it, Bush took the insults to a new level by at first appropriating $25 million for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (or UNFPA), which has won widespread recognition for its work in improving the lives of women in developing countries, and then changing his mind and saying the U.S. wouldn’t contribute a penny to the fund. (The U.N. estimates that by withholding once promised funds, Bush’s new anti-UNFPA policy will result in 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 4,800 maternal deaths, 77,000 more deaths among children under the age of 5 and almost 1 million abortions. So much for compassionate conservatism.)
But it’s not just about treaties, accords, and international conferences. Officials from countries around the world see the United States also bullying and intimidating its way through every international situation that has arisen during Bush’s presidency. It’s not that the White House has demonstrated disinterest in other nations’ perspective, it’s that he’s shown contempt for them.
While it is certainly true that Bush’s practice of ignoring these international treaties has soured many allies against the administration’s hyper-conservative approach, that’s not what has done the most meaningful damage. Instead, we truly raised the world’s ire by engaging in at times deceptive, at other times half-hearted, attempts to recruit international partners in a war with Iraq.
While urging readers not to “misremember history,” Hiatt concludes that “Clinton was more eager than Bush to assuage [international] resentment, but he was hardly more willing to shackle America’s economy or cede judicial control over its troops abroad to do so.” That may be true, but Clinton was also one who sought international cooperation in military conflicts and demonstrated genuine respect for common concerns among our allies, particularly in Europe. When Clinton left office, America not only enjoyed an unrivaled position as a world leader on a unipolar globe, but we also enjoyed respect and reverence from our allies and in international forums. Can we say the same today?