American Diplomatic Arrogance

According ro a former Mexican ambassador to Washington, the United States says it wants reform, and then practices the same behavior it seeks to stamp out in others. In this op-ed article from Mexico's El Universal, Jorge Montano explains why U.S. plans to reform the U.N. and the world's misbahaved nations are unlikely to succeed.

By Jorge Montano, Member of Mexico's Foreign Service*  
Translated by Paula van de Werken

February 22, 2006

Original Article (Spanish)    

For some months now, there seems to have been a healthy change in the strategy of the American State Department. Its post-September 11 isolationism had mutated into a shared activism, which includes a dose of tolerance for the opinions of its allies. In this regard, Russia and France have assumed the lead in mitigating a crisis that Iran could create, if it persists with its intention to build a nuclear device.

Tehran already retains the capacity to deliver a bomb, so if it were to build one, the country would be transformed into another danger to international security. It is clear that those who are promoting the recent emotional defense of the Prophet Mohammad and who encourage Tehran's belligerence, are calculating that Iran’s nuclear program could be the detonator which enflames the entire region.  Even now, Secretary Condoleezza Rice continues to rely on the good offices of Russia and France, but this could change when the matter is again taken up by the Security Council.

NATO has received the order from Washington to strengthen its presence in Sudan, as the U.S. continues this same process of decentralizing responsibility. To do the difficult job of guiding Hamas into a position of tolerance toward Israel for example, it has sought the help of neighboring countries and President Putin, which explains its change of attitude in regard to the authoritarianism that Putin has reinstated in Russia.

The Chinese government also has mediation work to do, this time with North Korea; Beijing is cooperating in exchange for Washington's help in making harmless those who promote Taiwan independence. It is undeniable that these new understandings take the domestic pressure off of Bush, for his unfortunate incursion into and continued presence in Iraq.

But America's new strategy of shared responsibility has yet to arrive at the United Nations, where the summit of Heads of State [December, 2005] failed to achieve even minimal advances on proposed reforms, especially in the realm of human rights. [2005 U.N. World Summit].

The prospect of change in the actual structure and especially the modus operandi of the U.N. doesn't seem even remotely possible. The organization has conceded that selective management, double standards and the obscene politicization of its agenda, all products of the Cold War, are beyond reform.

In the recent weeks of negotiation over Iran, the recommendations of the most well-informed group have been marginalized, resulting in an angry discussion between those in a politically submissive position and those who violate fundamental liberties as a policy of State [those favoring Iran vs. those backing the United States]. The resulting reciprocal accusations have condemned the process to a continuation of the existing (flawed) standards.

The possibility of change has been reduced to almost nil, with the White House's sharp rejection of a report by a committee of five experts, which was endorsed by the High Commission on Human Rights. They recommended the closure of the prison at Guantanamo and said that the treatment of the prisoners there amounted to torture as defined under international law.  The report also recommended that personnel at Guantanamo receive U.N.-supervised training.

With this attitude, the United States has committed acts for which it criticizes its most galling enemies every year; for example, it denied the U.N. team private access to the detainees. Under these conditions, the investigators concluded that for them to even visit Guantanamo would have violated rules of the U.N. Commission of Human Rights.

The recent broadcast of photographs showing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment meted out by American and British troops in Iraq show that the distorted handling of human rights by the so-called Western Alliance has become a convenient way to politicize the issue. The five experts confirm in their report a practice which non-governmental organizations have labeled "the subcontracting of torture." That is to say, the sending of detainees to countries where there is a real risk of them receiving the worst treatment.

Under these conditions, it is simply not feasible for the traditional defenders of human rights [U.S. and allies] to have authority over those named as long-standing violators of them. They simply corroborate - with a vengeance - the famous double standard, under which Washington does justice for some, but not for others.  The rejection of the U.N. report offends countries that had sought to correct such abusive practices, practices that without doubt, the cheerleaders of reform themselves are engaged. And this, with the inexplicable help of Secretary General Kofi Annan, who disassociated himself from the U.N. report, saying that the report’s authors were independent … as if this were a factor that was detrimental to the weight of their opinion.

The imminent end of Kofi Annan's second term will begin the process of succession that is duly regulated by the five permanent members of the Security Council, who will follow the American line as part of the long-established politics of horse-trading. The job description will be a choice between a diplomat and an administrator, with the prerequisite that he be "trustworthy."  This quality is fully satisfied today, and will be indispensable in Annan's replacement.

I end with a note of alarm in this unipolar world. 

The seriously contemptuous charges being leveled against the constitutional and legitimately elected government of Venezuela add to the danger. Once again, diplomatic guidelines recommend an unequivocal repudiation against those attitudes that affect the stability of our region.

*Ex-Ambassador of Mexico to United Nations and before that, the government of the United States. He is Vice President of the Mexican Council of International Affairs and President of the Spanish Foreign Affairs Publishing Council.

Montesco98@yahoo.com