Fraying Alliances
While the Iraq catastrophe is clearly the Administration’s single most significant post 9/11 foreign policy error, it is not the only one. Breaches of international law, lack of cooperation with allies and a general disregard for established norms of government to government behavior have marked the Administration’s foreign policy for the past 51/2 years.
In the counter-terror arena, these errors are gaining more visibility and rapidly fraying core U.S. strategic relationships with the Canadians, Germans, Italians and Australians at both a public and leadership level.
In Canada, Italy and Germany concerns are being fueled by the public airing of the “rendition” scandal. The public in each of these countries now knows that the CIA was responsible for kidnapping individuals (often citizens) and flying them to human rights abusing countries (such as Syria and Egypt) to be tortured.
Italian and German prosecutors are seeking to arrest members of the CIA involved in two of the more high profile kidnappings. In Canada the government has formally apologized and moved to compensate a Canadian citizen innocent of any crime who was brutally tortured in Syria after he was rendered by the U.S.
Additionally in Australia, the case of David Hicks, an Australian being held at Guantanamo is rapidly becoming a key issue for the electorate.
All of these cases show that the willful disregard for international law and established norms neither provides useful information nor strengthens the U.S. position in the global battle of ideas. In fact such actions undermine the reputation of the U.S. as a supporter of democracy and human rights while simultaneously making life very hard for governments that wish to be visible supporters in the fight against Al Qaeda.
It will be interesting to see if a Presidential candidate from either party is willing to make a “return to international law” a key plank in his or her foreign policy platform.
Related posts:
One can not see the present administration in Washington changing it’s course until their time is over. The democrate party will have to work very hard to bring back the good old relation we had during Clinton time.
Comment on February 7, 2007 @ 7:52 am
I have been in Australia for the past three months and the attitude towards America is turning ugly. Not only is the war very unpopular but the military commissions are seen as no better than kangaroo courts designed to secure convictions at all costs. If our closest allies are turning against us (and they really are) then I can only presume our international reputation is in tatters. Do we really have to wait for two more years before we can start to repair the damage.
Comment on February 7, 2007 @ 8:14 am
It appalls me that the government can subject citizens to rendition, arrange for them to be tortured, or at best allow them to be, claim that it is all for the safety of masses and expect everyone to be complicit. It appalls me even more that to a large extent that tact has worked.
During WWII, exactly the same argument –the security of nation– was used to imprison US citizens of Japanese heritage in US concentration camps. Decades after the war, the country apologized for the mistreatment of it citizens and quietly acknowledged a blemish on American history and ideals. I have no doubt that in a few decades a president or politician will stand up and denounce the acts of this administration and the country will apologize. But frankly, that’s not good enough. We need more than a way to apologize after the government has consciously stolen individual liberties in violation of our Constitution, our democratic principals and all notions of justice and freedom. We need to find a way to actually secure our liberties— secure them from the government, and from national hysteria cloaked and manipulated by the all encompassing, all powerful, phrase “national security.” We can’t wait for the next presidential election, we have to urge Congress to take action NOW.
Comment on February 7, 2007 @ 9:12 am
Good post, Raj. However, it made me think back to the 2004 Presidential campaign. Kerry ran on an American foreign policy that was summed up as: Stronger at home, respected in the world. Kerry, in fact, made a point that the United States would go to great lengths not to be restricted by international institutions when it came its national defense. This was in response to Bush’s oft repeated mantra that he wouldn’t seek a permission slip from the United Nations in order to protect our country from terrorists, implying the Kerry would do this. While I’m not sure if any candidate will run with “international law” serving as a key plank of their foreign policy, I could see several candidates certainly promoting a much more humble and principled approach to the way that we deal with other countries. Yes, I know the bar is pretty low! At the very least candidates could yearn for a return to US law actually governing our activities. In many of the situations you describe we’ve actually broken US law or at least established international treaties. I could foresee a candidate that emphasizes the essential role that the rule of law has played in American society and how we must keep our promises in international agreements (ie. the Geneva accords). These are values that I think the American public certainl cherishes. Though, I question whether or not a candidate could get very far with an international law foundation for his/her foreign policy.
Comment on February 8, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
What, exactly IS “international law”?
According to the UN website …
” … to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations
arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”
Seems tautological to me.
“‘international law’ means what I say it means”.
Alice in Wonderland anybody?
Comment on February 9, 2007 @ 9:16 pm