How far will this go? I heard Richard Perle say on TV the other day something bluntly along the lines of “we are seeking regime change not only in Iraq, but Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria as well.” How can a nation be a role model for anything good with such behavior? I think this article sums it up well (btw, does anyone have more info on what’s going on between Mexico and USA now?):
‘Let them hate as long as they fear’](The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos)
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 Roman 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 President George W. Bush’s attitude toward the world.
Mexico is an enormously important U.S. ally, not just because of its 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 UN 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 interview Monday with Copley News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn’t vote America’s way, saying that “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 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, saying that when 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, 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 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.
i never realized it could reach to this extent between Mexico and the US. Rather sad i must say. IF, for NO other reason than the usual depressingly selfish motivation, Bush should realize this can create a backlash against him (for the next elections) vis-a-vis the ethnic groups his policies might further isolate.