Following the September 11 attacks, amidst the anguish, death, and destruction, there was an overwhelming union between people. Many would note that the world had changed, our priorities had been reevaluated, and there was a strong belief that together we would emerge from the clouds of darkness.
Around the world, people grieved with America and felt her loss. Nations flags flew at half-mast, flower bouquets piled outside of American embassies, and comments made from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin declaring that “We are all Americans” was a popular sentiment with most of the free world.
At home in the States, there was evidence that we as a people had become one. Despite the questionable way in which President Bush had arrived in office, party-politics became secondary, and there was a rally of the masses around their president.
Instead of using the strong support at home and abroad, the Bush Administration proceeded to make a number of questionable moves that would alienate those that had come to his support. The President’s statement that “You are for us or against us” was unnecessary, and it rubbed even the most ardent supporters the wrong way. The Bush Administration then proceeded to publicly question the patriotism of any American that disagreed with their new policies.
Prior to the attacks on Afghanistan, both the French and German governments had offered military arms and troops to assist the American effort. Rather than choosing to strengthen these alliances and work together for the greater cause against terrorism, the Bush Administration declined these offers, an insult of international proportions. This unwillingness to work alongside specific European allies was not only a sign of disrespect, but it also provided a glimpse into how those in the Administration really felt about these Euroupean friends. Disdainful references later made towards “Old Europe” solidified those feelings.
In the push towards war on Iraq, President Bush once again used rhetoric that questioned the patriotism of Americans that went against his plan. At various levels of government, there was strong disagreement in going to war from both Republicans and Democrats alike, though the political pressure applied by the Administraion would have made voting against the war political suicide. The bully tactics had worked.
The Bush Administration decided to use political pressure rather than evidence to make its case for war in Iraq. The President and those in his Administration publicly questioned the validity and relevance of the UN Security Council (which the US is a member) if it were not willing to enforce its own resolutions. While the political pressure had once again resulted in getting what the Bush Administration desired, their political methods in gaining these votes widened the division between some of the closest allies the United States had.
On November 27, Dr Hans Blix and his team of UN weapons inspectors began work in Iraq. Dr Blix was a compromise choice selected by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. The UN Security Council had rejected Rolf Ekeus, the candidate put forward by the United States and Britain. As the inspections began, the Bush Administration intensified its push for war. There have been charges that Saddam Hussein is not fully cooperating with the inspectors. Dr Blix had voiced similar charges in his first formal statement to the Security Council, although his second statement to the Council had less teeth and recommended further inspections.
When Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke before the United Nations members, he made the case that Saddam Hussein’s continued noncompliance of Resolution 1441 should result in military action. Powell’s argument was less than what was advertised, and the long promised smoking gun was vague at best. The UN Council was not convinced by Powell’s argument for war, following instead the Blix recommendation for further inspections. President Bush once again questioned the relevance of the United Nations, suggesting that the Council might have become nothing more than a “debating society”.
The call to continue the weapons inspections has been led by the French government. It has been suggested that the French are the moral conscious of the United Nations. It’s difficult to accept this suggestion, particularly when the French government has their hand deep within the Iraqi cookie jar. Not only has Saddam Hussein built a 4 billion dollar IOU with the French, which would obviously be null and void if a new government were installed in Iraq, but the French government also has substantial oil contracts with the Hussein government.
The masses of people involved in the Peace/Anti-War Movement throughout the world continues to grow. Largely because of the rhetoric used by Bush and his Administration, the movement for peace has bled into a strong form of Anti-Americanism. A figure as despicable as Saddam Hussein, a man that is responsible for killing a million Iranians, thousands of Kuwaitis, and tens of thousands of his own people has all too easily faded from the protest. While few people support Saddam Hussein and his government, Bush and his Administration has somehow managed to make Saddam Hussein a sympathetic character. At the same time, leaders of America’s closest allies are feeling the political pressure from their own people, and political careers are now in jeopardy.