| THE DIPLOMATIC HALL OF SHAME |
| Written by Maria Elena Salinas |
| Monday, March 24 2003 |
| |
| In the past few weeks, the world witnessed diplomacy at its worst. That word with a certain flair to it became an embarrassing exercise in futility in the United Nations. It was almost repulsive to see the kind of manipulation and bribery that were seemingly aimed at turning respectable heads of state into wimps.
I looked up the word "diplomacy" in the dictionary and came up with this definition: "The conducting of relations between nations; tact." But when I looked up the word "diplomatic" in the thesaurus, it helped put things into perspective. To be diplomatic is not just to be tactful, suave, graceful and discreet, but also to be opportunistic, conniving, cunning and scheming.
It is obvious that decisions in political and diplomatic circles are the result of negotiations, arm-twisting and horse trading. But in the end, you would hope that those involved protected their dignity and did not compromise their convictions. You can't blame the United States for trying to elicit the support it wanted for its plans to attack Iraq and force Saddam Hussein out of power. However, it might have gone a bit too far.
President Bush made it clear early on that he was willing to take military action against Saddam Hussein single-handedly, with or without the support of the United Nations. But when it became clear that the American people would prefer to have U.N. support and that he would need the help of other countries in rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, his diplomatic machinery itself became a weapon of mass destruction.
If a country could not be convinced to support a pre-emptive attack against Iraq by mere persuasion, why not try bribery? Millions of taxpayers' dollars were offered to countries in exchange for their support. Even that is understandable, but the White House crossed the line when it used implicit threats of reprisal. "You're either with us or against us," is Mr. Bush's doctrine. No one in the world is allowed to disagree with the United States, and if a nation does, it will suffer the consequences. A negative vote, as Mr. Bush put it to a group of journalists, could trigger disciplinary action.
For Chile and Mexico, that attitude put Presidents Ricardo Lagos and Vicente Fox in uncomfortable positions. An overwhelming majority of their citizens oppose war. Neither head of state supports a unilateral pre-
emptive attack on a country, much less a forced regime change. However, neither president wants to be blacklisted by the United States or perceived as being on the side of Saddam Hussein. There is a pending free-trade agreement between Chile and the United States that could be affected by a negative vote. For Mexico, which has one-fifth of its citizens living in the United States, the stakes are even higher. Would a favorable vote revive a moribund immigration pact between the two neighboring countries?
No head of state wants to compromise a country's national interests, but a nation's leader should not have to compromise his or her convictions, either. Regardless of what their stance on the war with Iraq might be, you have to respect those who stand up for what they believe in. France and Britain are examples of this, albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum. To be persuaded to change your mind is legitimate, but to be bullied will only work against you in the end. Let's not forget that after 9-11, the United States had most of the world on its side. The pre-emptive attack against Iraq has dramatically changed world opinion of the United States.
Justifiably or not, the Bush administration was determined for months if not years to bring down the government of Saddam Hussein, but it should not bring international diplomacy down with him. |
