How Long Can You Tread Water?

By: Bridget Gibson

When George Walker Bush ascended to the office of the President of the United States, with his experienced entourage in tow, we were told that "the adults were back in charge" and there would be no learning curve. With this in mind, knowing that the collective governmental and administrative experience would not fail to recognize the function of the Executive Branch of our government in international policies, I look back on the accomplishments of the Bush administration's first year.

Opportunities abounded in February to join with 123 nations that pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines. The Bush administration refused to join. I guess they hadn't figured out how to agree to something so obvious. Another opportunity presented itself in August, and Mr. Bush disavowed a claim made by President Clinton that the United States would comply by 2006 to the Land Mine Treaty (banning land mines) which was signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. I surely hope that the land mine that took our American soldier's foot in Afghanistan was not of our own making.

Then, in March, Mr. Bush declared the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 "dead". Bush decided that global warming and greenhouse gasses had not been discussed and studied enough. (Note: Bush also shunned negotiations in Marrakech in November to revise the accord.)

In April, the United States failed to be reelected to the UN Human Rights Commission. Since Mr. Bush had been working for the appointment to the Human Rights Commission of John Negroponte and Richard Armitage as Deputy Secretary of State (of Iran-Contra fame), I can only suppose that the United Nations was more familiar with their history than most Americans.

In May, the administration refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss economic espionage and electronic surveillance (the US "Echelon" program), and refused to participate in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which sponsored talks in Paris on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens. Would OECD have assisted us in tracking terrorists earlier?

In July, the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (which had been ratified by 144 nations - including the United States) by providing for on-site inspections. I wonder if the knowledge that could have been gained then would have helped to understand the threat of anthrax and who possessed the technology to use this as a terrorist threat? (Note: In Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that the protocol is "dead" while accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan and Syria of violating the Convention while refusing to offer specific allegations or supporting evidence.) Also in July, the US opposed the UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms and the International Plan for Cleaner Energy, being the only nation to oppose either of these agreements and plans. Did the opposition to such accords allow the terrorists to arm themselves at the expense of American lives?

The week prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States withdrew from International Conference on Racism, which brought together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa. If we had attended and listened to the participants of this Conference, would we have learned more about the view held by other countries to the expanding powers of the policies of the United States and how the effects of such were influencing opinions of the disenfranchised?

By November, the Bush administration's disdain for humanity became obvious when it forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. This Treaty was signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89, including France, Great Britain and Russia. Continuing on in December, the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriation bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, which would be to set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC was signed in Rome in 1998 and approved by 120 countries, with seven opposed (including the US).

Also, in December, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), gutting the landmark agreement. This is the first time in the nuclear era that the United States has renounced a major arms control accord. Cold Wars are no longer in vogue, it would appear that we like ours hot.

The pattern of unilateralism becomes obvious when all of these acts are views together. Taken separately, they barely mark as blips on the radar of the American public. Only when viewed as a whole does the position of the current administration take its shape. We, these policies say, do not wish to coexist with other nations. We don't care what you think. I heard that said before this year. In the inimical words of George Walker Bush, "Who cares what you think", to a fellow citizen in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 4, 2001.