WASHINGTON GOES IT ALONE
By Jack A. Smith
Over the decades, the U.S. government has repeatedly ignored the desires of the great majority of the world’s countries in matters concerning international well-being. In the United Nations, the U.S. frequently stands as a minority of one or two in important progressive General Assembly votes, and in the Security Council it has used its veto more than all other countries combined. The year just passed, however, was extraordinary even for the United States in terms of scorning the international community’s ever-so-modest efforts to regulate world conditions to at least abstractly benefit humankind. Following are some of the key treaties, conventions and preferences backed by most of the world that Washington rejected in 2001, working backward from December, compiled from a variety of sources.
On Dec. 13, the U.S. government unilaterally withdrew from the universally supported Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed in 1972 with the USSR and continued with Russia. The far-right always despised the treaty but never had the power to overturn it until last year when George W. Bush assumed office. As with virtually every right-wing initiative taken since Sept. 11, the Bush administration now claims that destroying the treaty was required by the “war on terrorism.” Speaking two days before breaking the historic agreement, President Bush declared that “The attacks on our nation made even more clear that we need to build limited and effective defenses against a missile attack .... We must protect Americans and our friends against all forms of terror, including the terror that could arrive on a missile.” The only missiles in the hands of Al Qaeda, of course, were Stingers (capable of hitting low-flying planes overhead, not far distant targets) provided by the CIA to the Afghanistan warlords in the 1980s.
The Senate fortified its opposition to the 1998 International Criminal Court Treaty in a 78-21 vote Dec. 7 which amended the military appropriations bill with a proviso that would prevent U.S. soldiers from ever being subject to the proposed International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction (the ICC is not to be confused with the existing International Court of Justice). Two weeks later, however, the provision was dropped as a result of House-Senate negotiations to produce a final version of the appropriations bill, but the U.S. government still opposes the treaty. The ICC compact -- supported by 120 countries -- would establish a mechanism for prosecuting persons charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is expected to go into effect later this year after it is ratified by the 60th country. The amendment was designed by right-wing Sen. Jesse Helmes. Neither the Bush administration nor the Senate vote showed any inclination to ratify a treaty that eventually might bring charges against the U.S. government and military for war crimes. In recent years the U.S. indicated it would accept the ICC principle if it could only receive cases submitted to it by the UN Security Council. As a permanent member of the council, of course, Washington could then veto any recommendation to the court.
On Nov. 27, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton declared in Geneva at a conference convened to strengthen the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention that “the protocol is dead.” On July 25, the convention’s 54-member special committee recommended procedures for genuinely enforcing the convention, which was signed by 140 member states in 1972. The U.S. effectively scuttled the protocol on the grounds that it would impede Washington’s “legitimate activities” (i.e., research and development of ever more potent weaponry) and “facilitate industrial espionage” (i.e., U.S. openness about its biological and toxic weapons capability might result in having some of its secrets copied). At the November meeting, called to reconsider the issue, Bolton introduced a Bush administration proposal that would keep enforcement non-binding and eliminated on-site investigations. This would insure that no enforcement took place. Several NGOs were furious at the U.S. stance. “Sabotage,” was the characterization of the Federation of American Scientists. In essence, the U.S. wants to rid the world of all biological and toxic weapons -- but not at the expense of its own huge supply.
Every year since 1992, the overwhelming majority of UN members in the General Assembly have voted to demand that the U.S. government end its embargo of Cuba. They did the same thing in October, by a vote of 167-3. The perennial U.S. and Israeli “no” votes were joined this year, inexplicably, by that of the Marshall Islands. The embargo was initiated by the Eisenhower administration in 1960. The U.S. strengthened the sanctions in 1992 in the midst of Cuba’s economic crisis, hoping to strangle its small neighbor for good. The White House tightened the embargo again in 1996 in an attempt to prevent this island of only 12 million people from recovering. Why does Uncle Sam continue to subvert Cuba despite the disapproval of virtually the entire world? Look at it this way: the population of Latin America and the Caribbean is heading toward 500 million -- and well over 40% of these people are living in desperate poverty. The U.S. fears the example of a successful and prosperous Cuba, with its socialist system and revolutionary origins, located in close proximity to such grave poverty. It is for related reasons that the U.S. destroyed progressive or socialist movements and governments in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala and Grenada, and why it is now closely monitoring developments in Colombia and Venezuela.
In September, the United States and Israel walked out of the 163-nation International Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa, much to the consternation of virtually the entire Third World. The main expressed reason was to circumnavigate anticipated criticism of Israel because of its oppressive policies toward the Palestinians. But the U.S. government even more strongly sought to avoid an international conference where many African and Asian countries, as well as Africans of the diaspora, were prepared to demand a formal apology for centuries of colonialism and slavery. Many of the countries also raised the question of reparations for the historic subjugation and underdevelopment of their societies by the imperialist nations. Several countries, led by host South Africa and Finland, tried to prevent the walkout by obtaining a considerably modified substitute version of the Palestinian criticism, but the U.S. and Israel rejected it, falsely implying that the conference majority was composed of anti-Semites and racists. The Congressional Black Caucus condemned the walkout, insisting that “slavery and reparations must be discussed,” but it was ignored as usual. The positive side of Durban was the unity of the African and Asian delegations in particular (shades of Bandung in 1955, which gave rise to the movement of the nonaligned and other struggles against imperialism) and the exposure of Bush administration arrogance and racism for staging the walkout.
In August, President Bush renounced President Clinton’s pledge to “eventually” comply with the Land Mind Treaty. The treaty was approved in December 1997 by a vote of 122-9. The U.S. opposed the accord in part because Commander-in-Chief Clinton did not wish to have a confrontation with the military brass, which is holding on to land mines like a dog with a favorite bone. Since then, some 20 additional countries have signed the treaty, and the Clinton administration said the U.S. would take steps to outlaw land mines in the year 2006, under a new administration. The treaty bans the use, stockpiling, trade and production of antipersonnel landmines which maim and kill some 20,000 people each year, almost entirely civilian workers, peasants and children. The mines also serve to prevent cultivation of large tracts of farmland for fear of explosions. It has been estimated that up to 100 million land mines have been deployed in some 60 countries, largely in the developing world, all waiting to be triggered by an unfortunate passerby. Last month, reflecting the Bush administration’s views but restating a long-standing reluctance to part with this people-maiming weapon, the Pentagon recommended that the White House abandon all efforts to ever join the treaty; reject proposals to rid the world of “dumb” mines by 2003; refuse to conduct research into developing alternatives to land mines; and continue deploying mines wherever “needed.”
In July, the Bush administration saw to it that the United States was the only nation to oppose the United Nations Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms. The White House did so for the same reason Attorney General John Ashcroft later ordered a search of purchase receipts for box cutters -- but not for easily obtained handguns -- allegedly bought in the U.S. by alleged terrorists from the Mideast: A desire not to offend the gun lobby.
In May, reflecting upon White House hypocrisy in matters pertaining to human rights and the United Nations, the UN Human Rights Commission voted for the first time against electing a U.S. representative to this important group. The vote resulted from an informal coalition led by some close U.S. allies in Europe and joined by Third World countries on the 54-nation Economic and Social Council, the group’s parent body. Congress subsequently voted to withhold $244 million in dues to “punish” the United Nations until the U.S. is reinstalled.
In April, the European Union introduced a motion before the UN Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva calling for a worldwide moratorium on legal executions. The measure passed 27-18, with the U.S. constituting the key “no” vote.
In March, President Bush in effect pulverized the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which generate global warming. He did so in opposition to the huge majority of world countries which signed the accords, and to the views of 75% of the American people who considered global warming a serious problem. The U.S. signed the moderate, first-step treaty four years ago on the basis of mounting scientific evidence that global warming, left unchecked, would result in a worldwide catastrophe in several decades. The Kyoto Protocol committed its signatories to the initial goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the following decade to the levels of 1990. Since the United States releases 25% of the gases, Bush’s decision to withdraw from the treaty means the objective cannot be met. The U.S. action was criticized by virtually the entire world, including all the industrialized countries. Bush charged the accord was “fatally flawed” because performance standards for poorer, developing countries (which produce far less greenhouse gas) were lower than those of the developed world. Nine months later, when the protocol countries met to weaken the accord in order to induce the U.S. to reconsider its position, the Bush administration continued to shun the treaty.
Aside from the "Partnership of Nations" coalition Washington constructed to secure international support for the Bush administration’s expansionist “War on Terrorism,” the U.S. government is relying more on unilateral action these days and less on cooperating with other nations, even close allies, than at any time since the beginning of World War 2. Economic, military, foreign, environmental and social policies issue from Washington without regard for the views of other nations or the danger they represent to the rest of the world. The sole criterion appears to be whether or not a policy advances U.S. economic and military interests and benefits the gargantuan corporations that rake in the profits from such maneuvers.
The more the hubris-infected U.S. exercises its role as singular superpower and undisputed military ruler of an earth-spanning domain, the more precariously positioned become all other nations and peoples. Unless Washington can be deflected from its present imperial course, its governance of the world constitutes a harbinger of disaster.