theatlantic.com
U.N. Notebook | October 14, 2003
U.S. Rebuffs to Neighbors Should Raise Concerns
by Barbara Crossette
....
UNITED NATIONS—Ever since the epochal terrorist attacks on the United States two years ago, no two countries have been more important to American security than Canada and Mexico. The U.S. military may control the skies and approaches by sea, but those two long land borders could have been nightmares in 2001 and could still be now.
So why has the United States been so indifferent to its neighbors? At the United Nations both countries have suffered rebuffs this year, and this should be cause for concern.
While the focus in the United States has been on repairing relations with France and other Europeans who refused to support the American-led war in Iraq, Canadians and Mexicans also have had serious differences of opinion with Washington, but get little attention. Mexico, as a member of the Security Council, would have voted against Security Council backing for a war last winter had the United States not withdrawn its proposed resolution and gone to war virtually alone. Canada, while not then a council member but always very active around the United Nations, also opposed a rush into war and offered concrete suggestions for better ways to get international support.
The Canadians, who proposed delaying action long enough to allow the U.N. arms inspectors back to complete the complex program they had begun to put in place before the American invasion aborted their work, thought that a pause of perhaps six more weeks could have exposed Saddam Hussein and solidified support for action against his regime. Or, in the light of recent history, the inspectors might have found no weapons of mass destruction, thereby stealing some immediate thunder from the U.S. and British governments, but underlining nevertheless that the Iraqi capacity for building and deploying such arms was real. Either way, a less contentious judgment might have been made about how dangerous Iraq was and there would be much less rancor now, as the U.S. is rebuffed when it seeks help in a messy occupation.
What the Canadians got from Washington last March was not thanks, or even much of a hearing, but an abrupt dismissal. Canada saw its effort to help the British and Americans develop a stronger position on Iraq treated as unwelcome interference.
Mexico, which had been talking with the Canadians about their plan—as had Chile, another Security Council member—was in the thick of council debate over the evidence being presented to justify war with Iraq and under huge pressure to back Washington. The Mexicans had done their homework, said Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, Mexico's U.N. ambassador. He had studied intelligence, satellite photographs and as much other material as possible and concluded that there was no way Mexico could buy into the justification for war offered by the United States. Nobody seemed interested in Mexico's opinion if it was contrary to Washington's, but Aguilar Zinser decided not to go public on the American media and risk a damaging battle of words between the two countries.
Both Canada and Mexico have been a little stunned by American cold-shouldering since 9/11, when, they believe, they came to the aid of the United States with almost reckless haste. <font color=red>The Canadian government decided within 45 minutes of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon to allow all inbound trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific flights diverted from the United States to land on Canadian territory, fully aware that there could have been more terrorists in the air. Canada then rewrote asylum procedures, spent $7 billion enforcing its border security, and has sent 2,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, where it will take command of the international security force next year.
In Mexico, Aguilar-Zinser said, reactions were equally quick. The Mexican government not only offered to close and patrol the border but also took into custody hundreds of Muslims, including some Iraqis, putting aside normal civil rights protections. "We went to the hotels where these guys were and we took them in custody, only to assure the United States that we were absolutely ready," Aguilar Zinser said in a recent interview. "We were taking out of trains and buses coming into Mexico people with passports from Pakistan, from Saudi Arabia, and turned them back to the authorities in the United States for them to investigate if they were involved in the attacks and were fleeing out of the country. This was done immediately and at great risk of a scandal for Mexico."<font color=black>
Does it matter that public opinion in Canada and Mexico has nurtured slights for two years, and they keep on coming? Does it matter that an American diplomat was overheard outside the Security Council saying that nobody cares what Mexico thinks? It mattered in the Mexican press. Does it matter that U.S. President George W. Bush almost never mentions Canada in speeches listing Washington's great friends? To the south as well as the north, there is measurable bitterness, polls show. There always has been, of course. But at a time when U.S. officials are looking for ways to enhance the image of the United States abroad, has anyone thought of the neighbors?
Both Canada and Mexico often feel not only underappreciated but also invisible. Or worse. A few weeks ago, when Secretary of State Colin Powell was making the case in the Security Council that the United States had no imperial ambitions in Iraq, he turned to a past all too familiar to Mexicans. Aguilar Zinser recalls Powell saying that "the United States never acquired territory by conquest."
"There was a member of the Security Council sitting in front of Mr. Powell whose country lost half of its territory to a conquest by the United States," Aguilar Zinser said. "That amazed me. Even for diplomatic purposes you don't say something like that in front of the Mexican ambassador."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
