Earl M. Bartley, Contributor
THE NEXT time a feminist tells me that women are more sensitive than men, I will negate her argument by pointing to United States 'Viceroy' to Jamaica the seemingly mistitled Ambassador Sue Cobb.
To be fair to her 'Acerbic Excellence', a great part of the misunderstanding between CARICOM and the United States arises from our own failure to fully appreciate the nomenclature and nature of the stuffing known as 'great power chauvinism'. This is a prickly mix of national and racial pomposity, doctrinaire ideology and an aggressive readiness to use force as a manifestation of resoluteness. When Ambassador Cobb deprecates the measured, almost timorous analysis of CARICOM leaders presented by Prime Minister P. J. Patterson as "inflammatory and unsophisticated", what is being said is not that the leaders are undereducated. But, that they do not fully appreciate, or appear to be forgetting, the power disparities between US superpower and their dependent status, or where their interest lies, and how it can be affected.
FRIENDS OR CLIENTS?
Another area of seeming confusion is the use of the word "friend" to describe our relations with the US. To the great power chauvinists, countries like Britain, France, Germany and Israel are allies. These are countries they have treaties with and long-term shared economic and security interests and goals. As interwoven as their economic interests have become, Russia and China are still nascent rivals with whom the US is developing 'beneficial' relations. Countries like Jamaica and CARICOM and much of Africa and parts of Asia are viewed as satellites, clients, backwaters, areas of opportunities and concerns.
The important difference in the behaviour of the United States according to this ranking of countries is the level of her interference in their internal affairs. In relation to allies, the United States maintains a largely respectful distance from their internal politics, except for a little industrial spying. In relation to her rivals, especially those with a different ideology, the level of interference is generally internal spying and public hectoring about their human rights records, lack of freedom and economic inefficiency. As regards those countries she views as satellites and clients, the United States often arrogates the right, or more correctly, uses her power to intervene in their internal affairs up to the point of replacing their leaders whenever she deems it in her interests to do so.
The mistake of many people was to take too literally the polite talk of friendship, suggesting as it does, that friends can agree to disagree. When it comes to fundamental interests or even personal vendettas, as Bush has indicated in Iraq and now Haiti, the power-trippers entertain no opposition from friends, least of all clients without consequences.
RICE AND POWELL
The two individuals in the top leadership of the Bush administration that I feel some disappointment with, though not unexpectedly, are National Security Adviser, Dr. Condolezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell. I have previously wondered how individuals from a historically disadvantaged and oppressed group like African Americans would behave if they had responsibility for fundamental strategic areas of US policy. Would they be their own persons, using their own values and best judgement to develop and guide policies for their country, and given the reach of the United States, for the benefit of the world's people. Or would they repeatedly subsume their own values and sympathies and do what they are told. From the performance so far, the latter seems to be the case.
Condolezza Rice has interpreted her role, as Newsweek informed us some months ago, as deciphering and trying to understand President Bush's instincts, desires and objectives then elaborating and articulating them in more intellectual form. She has done such an exceptional job of reading Bush's and expressing his desires, she is often described as his 'alter ego'. Her critics note, however, that to the extent that Rice interprets her job as mainly determining and articulating Bush's desires in a more articulate way, the President does not benefit from her independent thought and direction.
More significantly, Dr. Rice belongs by virtue of genetics, if not class, to a disadvantaged group. President Bush frequently champions so-called American values of political freedom and free-markets.
NEED DIRECTIONS
Secretary of State Colin Powell's position is equally untenable. To be truthful, he seems to assert his values on policies much more than Dr. Rice, but he is often undercut. The issue with Mr. Powell is that he rarely seems able to transcend his socialisation as a soldier. And in the United States, where civilians control the military, even when he was at the pinnacle of the military hierarchy as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he still had to report to and take direction from the Secretary of Defence and the President as Commander in Chief. What is worse, he seems to need directions. Because when he had a chance to be Commander in Chief in 1996 and 2000 he declined to run for office.
It is sometimes pathetic though, the way General Powell is often undercut and used by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. Soon after assuming office as Secretary of State, Powell, showing his internationalist inclinations, declared his support for the Kyoto (environmental) Treaty. Approximately two days later without giving Powell the opportunity to retract, the White House pointedly declared their opposition to Kyoto. The message, not only would Bush not be upstaged by his star quality Secretary of State, "the foreign policy", as Cheney snarled, "was going to be Bush's". Powell was mainly going to be the executor, not developer, of policy.
Moreover, on both the Iraq and Haiti problems the White House appeared to be operating two-track policies. Powell, from all appearances, was mainly used to drum-up international support for what Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush wanted to do. When the international support was too slow in congealing or not going in the desired direction, the "Troika" simply pulled in Powell and shifted to Plan B which was probably the real Plan A all along.
No wonder Powell has already put out the word that he will not return as Secretary of State if Bush wins a second term.
HAITI, JAMAICA, CARICOM
Despite his failings, not the least of which was consorting with gangsters instead of strengthening legitimate state security, I believe that Aristide was the best chance in 100 years for Haiti to establish a democratic tradition and to begin the popular transformation of their economy. The stress of Lavalas on community economic development and strengthening health and education was the correct focus of policy for Haiti at this stage.
Aristide was mainly blocked by Opposition groups because they saw him as a threat to their privileges, and by the Bush administration for what appears like petty ideological reasons. They were opposed to him because of his advocacy of liberation theology during the 1980s and they probably disparaged his bottom-up economic outlook as socialistic. Whereas the Clinton administration provided almost US$1 billion of aid to Haiti during the 1990s, after Bush came to office in 2001, aid to Haiti was reduced to a trickle, of less than US$50 million per year channelled through NGOs.
A more flexible administration in Washington might have tied continued aid to Haiti with Aristide curbing his excesses and continuing to strengthen democratic institutions. But not so with the force first, doctrinaire, one-size-fits-all Bush administration. With leaders like these, no wonder the world is in such a frightful mess with terrorism and fear spreading, and human rights and the rule of law contracting.
I cannot help but note in passing, that despite the pervasive squalor, poverty and civil war in Haiti only about 60 or 70 people have been killed in a population that is three times Jamaica's, compared to the over 200 killed here since the start of the year. Haiti might be more chaotic, but we are certainly more murderous. And probably for the same reasons - too much hopelessness and bad government.
In the 1960s and '70s, Jamaica aspired to a more self-sufficient economy with more diversified trade links. Today more than 80 per cent of our foreign exchange, our trade and tourists come from the United States. We have replaced a noble aspiration with being a poor imitation of Puerto Rico without the option of statehood. Then we complain about Ambassador Sue Cobb talking down to us as if Jamaica is a mere satellite. Still, it would be interesting to see how those great defenders of democracy in Washington would react if Aristide followers were to elect him President in a write in vote in the next elections. Welcome, Aristide!
Earl M. Bartley is an economist and businessman. You can send your comments to adapapa@cwjamaica.com
