[CIMC-work] Let Them Hate as Long as They Fear (addendum to DonG's note of yesterday on possible Mexioco/Iraq story)

[Elizabeth Fraser]

>From Today's NY Times--consider this an addition to Don's note from
Emile Schepers for possible future story on US threats to Mexico.  --
eliz
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

March 7, 2003
Let Them Hate as Long as They Fear
By PAUL KRUGMAN

 
Why does our president condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach
to our friends and allies this administration is fostering, including
among its most senior officials? Has 'oderint dum metuant' really become
our motto?" So reads the resignation letter of John Brady Kiesling, a
career diplomat who recently left the Foreign Service in protest against
Bush administration policy.

"Oderint dum metuant" translates, roughly, as "let them hate as long as
they fear." It was a favorite saying of the emperor Caligula, and may
seem over the top as a description of current U.S. policy. But this
week's crisis in U.S.-Mexican relations - a crisis that has been almost
ignored north of the border - suggests that it is a perfect description
of George Bush's attitude toward the world.

Mexico is an enormously important ally, not just because of our common
border, but also because of its special role as a showcase for American
ideals. For a century and a half Mexico has - often with good reason -
seen its powerful neighbor as an exploiter, if not an outright enemy.
Since the first Bush administration, however, the United States has made
great efforts to treat Mexico as a partner, and Mexico's recent track
record of economic stability and democracy is, and should be, a source
of pride on both sides of the border.

But Mexico's seat on the U.N. Security Council gives it a vote on the
question of Iraq - and the threats the Bush administration has made to
get that vote are quickly destroying any semblance of good will.

Last week The Economist quoted an American diplomat who warned that if
Mexico didn't vote for a U.S. resolution it could "stir up feelings"
against Mexicans in the United States. He compared the situation to that
of Japanese-Americans who were interned after 1941, and wondered whether
Mexico "wants to stir the fires of jingoism during a war."

Incredible stuff, but easy to dismiss as long as the diplomat was
unidentified. Then came President Bush's Monday interview with Copley
News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico
didn't vote America's way, saying, "I don't expect there to be
significant retribution from the government" - emphasizing the word
"government." He then went on to suggest that there might, however, be a
reaction from other quarters, citing "an interesting phenomena taking
place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the
French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."

And Mr. Bush then said that if Mexico or other countries oppose the
United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline."

These remarks went virtually unreported by the ever-protective U.S.
media, but they created a political firestorm in Mexico. The White House
has been frantically backpedaling, claiming that when Mr. Bush talked of
"discipline" he wasn't making a threat. But in the context of the rest
of the interview, it's clear that he was.

Moreover, Mr. Bush was disingenuous when he described the backlash
against the French as "not stirred up by anybody except the people." On
the same day that the report of his interview appeared, The Financial
Times carried the headline, "Hastert Orchestrates Tirade Against the
French." That's Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of
Representatives. In fact, anti-French feeling has been carefully
fomented by Republican officials, Rupert Murdoch's media empire and
other administration allies. Can you blame Mexicans for interpreting Mr.
Bush's remarks as a threat to do the same to them?

So oderint dum metuant it is. I could talk about the foolishness of such
blatant bullying - or about the incredible risks, in a multiethnic,
multiracial society, of even hinting that one might encourage a backlash
against Hispanics. And yes, I mean Hispanics, not Mexicans: once
feelings are running high, do you really think people will politely ask
a brown-skinned guy with an accent whether he is a citizen or, if not,
which country he comes from?

But my most intense reaction to this story isn't anger over the
administration's stupidity and irresponsibility, or even dismay over the
casual destruction of hard-won friendships. No, when I read an interview
in which the U.S. president sounds for all the world like a B-movie
villain - "You have relatives in Texas, yes?" - what I feel, above all,
is shame.   


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company