|
The
Danger of Unilateralism
February 5, 2003
By John D. Briner
 In
December of last year, I attended as a delegate to the Inter-American
Forum on Political Parties held in Vancouver, Canada. The
theme of the three-day conference was to discuss the issues
surrounding political party financing, funding disclosure
and enforcement, and political reform. The conference also
served as a backdrop for the exchange of ideas and viewpoints,
as leaders of parties as diverse as the Chilean Christian
Democrats and the Bolivian Revolutionary Workers’ Party could
be seen in animated conversation. The conference was less
about endless debate over ideological differences, and more
about finding common ground in the issues that face every
political party, regardless of stripe.
It was not until halfway through Mr. Jean Pierre Kingsley’s
opening remarks, however, that I noticed a glaring absence.
Momentarily ignoring the Canadian Chief Electoral Officer’s
words, I quickly scanned the list of delegates in the conference
materials. Of all the countries representing the Americas,
one country in particular was conspicuously absent from the
conference - the United States. Not one delegate, or party
leader, or Senator, or Congressman was present. Not even the
academics.
I was certainly not the only delegate who noticed, however;
a number of prominent speakers ruefully noted the absence
throughout the conference. That the most powerful player on
the continent was not in attendance cast pallor over the conference,
which was hosted by the Organization of American States, headquartered,
ironically, in Washington, DC. True, the conference did not
deal with such earth-shaking topics as global terrorism or
other matters of foreign policy, but the ill-feeling resulting
from the absence could not come at a worse time for the US;
a country that sorely needs support for a trajectory that
many consider misguided.
Nor does it help for the United States to estrange itself
from its closest neighbors, especially in countries where
US involvement is considerably less than spotless. The history
of US foreign policy in Latin America is grim. In the 1930’s,
Roosevelt lost the respect of many South Americans by adopting,
along with Chamberlain’s UK, a non-interventionist policy
with regard to Nazi support of Franco’s aggression in Spain.
At the time, many South Americans countries, especially Argentina,
called on the US to help stop the support for General Franco
by fascist governments of Germany and Italy. When only a handful
of years later, Truman’s America adopted a strict interventionist
policy with regard to the spread of socialist thought in Latin
America, many South Americans were struck by the apparent
hypocrisy.
In informal discussion with various delegates over the absence
of the US at the conference, many reiterated the US legacy
of bad faith in Latin Countries; the interventionist policies
of Truman and Kennedy in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, the
1968 slaying of Che Guevara by the CIA in a Bolivian jungle,
the 1989 invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega; and
the covert support for General Pinochet’s coup and subsequent
rise to power in the 1980’s. Nor can many South Americans
easily forget that the US effectively ignored the World Court’s
1986 judgment condemning the US for sponsoring the war against
Daniel Ortega’s Sandinista government in Nicaragua.
The US has always needed the support of its allies, in both
defense and moral backing. The importance of allies in every
conflict spanning from the Second World War to the Gulf War
cannot be understated. More recently, during the war in Afghanistan
following September 11, allies played a crucial role in securing
early victory. In fact, in his first State of the Union address
following Sep 11, Bush publicly thanked those countries who
had helped form a coalition in Afghanistan, including Latin
countries such as El Salvador.
And the US is not yet finished in Afghanistan; just last
week, US troops came under fire from 80 rebels in southeastern
Afghanistan. Military action against Iraq appears likely,
if not inevitable. And with the US currently considering opening
a third front in North Korea, now is not the time to be losing
the support of its closest neighbors.
Mr. Bush is brave to state that the US is prepared to fight
alone if necessary. Such comments are dangerous, however.
The US requires, at the very least, ideological support for
its actions, if not military support. Even those that call
themselves allies are quick to distance themselves when it
appears that a country is acting out of aggression. Unilateralism
can be too easily interpreted as aggression, and aggression
endears itself to no one. No one except for the very rogue
states that Mr. Bush feels compelled to defeat.
|
