Threatening our principles

No one should have been surprised last week when the White House started issuing threats against Syria for harboring ex-Iraqi leaders. Why? It seems that this is the only way the Bush administration knows to deal with disagreements with other countries.

Consider the Bush team's post-Iraq efforts to court nations who didn't join the coalition of the coerced in March. Far from reaching out to countries like Mexico and France, US allies who opposed the war in Iraq, the administration has threatened to punish them for their transgression on the Iraq issue.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said recently that France would have to "pay some serious consequences" for its persistent opposition to war in Iraq. President Bush used to be best pals with Vincente Fox. Now he won't even return his phone calls. The Free Trade Agreement with Chile has now been delayed because Chile was unfaithful on the Security Council.

These threats violate two of America's most closely held principles. The first is that of free trade. It was a deeply-held belief at the end of World War II that competitive trading blocs, as opposed to internationally integrated trade, were a major cause of the Second World War. American liberals like Cordell Hull worked hard to create an international free trade body, over the objections of the colonial powers, in particular the British. While the original effort for the ITO (International Trade Organization) fell short, the world was left with the GATT, which eventually turned into the WTO, and which has reduced average tariffs from 40 percent to four percent since 1945.

This is no small accomplishment. It was achieved after overcoming numerous political and economic obstacles. Moreover, it has contributed to the economic development of many nations which have succeeded using export-led growth. Are we now to throw this achievement away, or at least prevent its advancement, over a political dispute?

A dispute, moreover, which is not as simple as stars or stripes. This column has been critical of France's diplomacy. And it was flawed, to be sure. But it was not completely illegitimate. In particular, it enjoyed wide support among the French population. Which brings me to the second principle violated by "punishing" peaceniks -- Democracy.

President Bush has called Tony Blair "courageous" in going against public opinion in Britain and instead supporting what he knew was right. That may be. But there's courage, and there's suicide. Blair had especially wide support in his party, his parliament, and his public, before backing Bush. The same could not be said of Vincente Fox, who risked being seen as an American puppet by supporting a second Security Council resolution. Across Latin America, polls show 70 to 85 percent of people are against the war. Fox, and others who opposed the war, would have been lame ducks if they backed war in Iraq.

American politicians have railed against France for its lack of respect for and loyalty to the trans-Atlantic alliance. Where was our loyalty to that alliance when we turned down the Kyoto Protocol, which all of Europe supported? The International Criminal Court? Likewise, the Americans thought it was Fox who backed out of friendship with Bush. In fact, Bush lost the confidence of Mexicans when he failed to come through on his promise of a deal for Mexican workers coming into the US. Clearly, loyalty to alliances doesn't always supercede national interest or domestic opinion.

Meanwhile, in the President's "coalition," one need go no farther down the alphabetical list than "Afghanistan" to realize that the coalition is not one of conviction, but of coercion -- states that have little choice but to side with America, because they cannot afford to lose America's friendship.

Is that what our international social scene will turn into? We only have friends that can't afford to disagree with us? I have to believe we are much better than that. We should be able to have disagreements with other countries without threatening them with trade sanctions and invasion, not only because it's the right thing to do, but because relationships with other powerful countries are important to us. We will need their support in the future.

We understood this before. We had many disputes with France, especially in the Cold War years, but we dealt with them by respecting France's right to make its own decisions. That is real courage. The Soviet Union did the opposite. When it had disputes with other members of its bloc, it either crushed them (Czechoslovakia) or had bitter break-ups with them (China). This left its alliance weak, which the US used to its great advantage. The US will need to relearn this lesson if it wants to maintain its own international order in the coming decades.