Ian Boyne, ContributorTHE PUZZLING and uncalled for warning by Leader of the Opposition, Bruce Golding, to the Government not to sell out to Venezuela for a few barrels of oil couldwell be a vulgar and desperate courting of the United States in light of the enormous Portia challenge to his electoral chances.
Why did he feel it necessary to lecture the governing People's National Party (PNP) about not backing Venezuela's bid for a United Nations Security Council seat because of PetroCaribe, when there is absolutely no indication from this Government it would do any such thing?
Why did he feel it necessary to play the choirboy role for the powerful hyper-power?
Could it be that Golding is being advised by his new-found American political strategists to make overtures to the United States to get support for the Jamaica Labour Party in the US-Venezuela battle for the Latin American region?
Did his statements represent unprincipled courtship on the part of Golding?
Mark you, the JLP has a history of narrow and reflexive pro-Americanism and pro-Western imperialism, dating back to Bustamante's backward statement, "We are with the West."
NO SOPHISTICATION
The JLP has never traditionally displayed any sophistication when it comes to foreign policy issues. This is an area for Golding to show that he is truly new and different.
Edward Seaga skilfully played up to U.S. imperialism in the 1970s at the height of the Cold War when Michael Manley was an outstanding leader of the Non-Aligned Movement and voice of conscience for the world's poor and oppressed.
Now, facing an immensely popular Portia Simpson Miller and the prospect of being in the political wilderness for at least another five years, Golding might be gambling on marketing himself as loyal to American interests at a time when the U.S. is desperately in need of friends in Latin America and the Caribbean.
A Zogby poll of Latin America's elites found that an astounding 86 per cent of them disapprove of Washington's management of conflicts around the world. (And a just-released, authoritative Pew Global Attitudes poll shows Bush's ratings globally have gone down).
All countries in the region continue to seek to strengthen ties with the U.S. for economic reasons, but there is no admiration for U.S.
The U.S. possesses very little 'soft power', to use the phrase coined by the well-known Harvard scholar Joseph Nye.
Says the January/February issue of the scholarly Foreign Affairs journal in an essay titled 'Is Washington Losing Latin America?': "Anti-Americanism has surged in every country in Latin America. People in the region, rich and poor, resent the Bush administration's aggressive unilateralism and condemn Washington's disregard for international institutions and norms."
The essay goes on to say that "Washington is galled that no government in Latin America has yet been willing to help it challenge Chavez. Even governments closely associated with Washington have sympathy for the Venezuelan leader's anti-Bush, anti-American polemics."
If Golding can market himself as a loyalist to the neoconservatives of the American foreign policy establishment, then the Bush administration could find creative ways of facilitating some assistance to the party. It could also add some pressure to the Simpson Miller administration.
Golding has been making some smart political moves recently and this could be a strategic courting of the U.S. under the guise of concern about the integrity of Jamaican foreign policy.
Of course, one must be fair and mention that, in the speech, Golding showed that he had not abandoned his independence of thought and he cannot honestly be dismissed as being a lackey of the U.S. Golding made it clear in the speech that he disagreed with the U.S. going into Iraq without U.N. approval and involvement, and he strongly disagreed with its Guantanamo Bay policy.
WHY THE WARNING?
No one who has criticised his statements has gone on to mention these significant facts. Golding is absolutely right that we should not follow Chavez in his ideologically-driven and fanatical anti-American crusade.
I agree with Golding that Chavez should be left to fight his own battles. My major question is, why the warning when there is no indication that this Government is slavishly following Chavez?
Does the PNP have a history of aping other countries' foreign policy agenda?
Jamaica under the PNP has pursued an activist foreign policy, and rightly so, but it has done so on issues it has felt strongly and deeply about.
The PNP Government's foreign policy has been principled and driven by its own philosophical world view. Disagree with the PNP if you will and find convergence with others if you must, but you can't say with justification that the PNP has been the surrogate for any power.
Under Manley, there were positions we took, for example, on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which differed from the Soviet Marxists and Cuba.
So, if this particular Government has not shown any proclivity to abandon the traditional principled and independent foreign policy role its party has espoused, why the warning from Golding?
This is what raises suspicions as to his motives which, in fairness, I have no way of knowing. I can only ask some searching questions as a commentator.
According to The Gleaner report of Monday, June 12, Golding in an interview after his warning speech "gave an unequivocal no to supporting Venezuela."
And if the following quotation is accurate, I find it disturbing: "I think it will affect our relationship with America. How, I can't tell but I know it won't be good. There are some critical issues coming up before the Security Council and I think that the Government has to think about the long-term interests of Jamaica."
UNPRINCIPLED APPROACH
Now, Golding has not said we should not support Venezuela for this or that set of reasons. No. He is implying that we should not support Venezuela for that might upset the mighty U.S. with severe consequences for us.
This is a most unprincipled and Machiavellian approach to foreign policy. It reduces foreign policy to prostitution. It is devoid of morality. It reflects the so-called realist approach to foreign policy rather than the idealist view.
Now, there are many Jamaicans who would agree with Golding 100 per cent. For them, we should never do anything to upset the U..S. for the U.S. can punish us. There are many Jamaicans who believe it is pure foolishness and empty idealism to stand up for principles and values for which you will be punished. They will sell out any principle for monetary interests. Golding knows he can appeal to these Jamaicans, many of whom see the U.S. as their Promised Land.
I also have serious reservations about Venezuela's getting the Security Council seat. I have serious concerns about Chavez's commitment to democracy. His megalomania and crude anti-Americanism is repulsive to me.
I admire his strength in standing up to the U.S. and pointing out its hypocrisy in many areas. I admire the fact that he provides some buffer to the unilateralist impulse of the U.S. in the region. But, he seems to be more in love with himself and his own voice than devoted to certain principles.
Ironically, while Golding is concerned that we not jeopardise our independence because of oil, he himself displays a lack of courage in apparently being unwilling to suffer the economic and political consequences of upsetting the U.S. If we should not sell out to Venezuela for some barrels of oil, then we should not sell out to America for a fistful of dollars. I am concerned about Golding's consistency.
He states in his speech "If we are not careful we are going to get sucked into this anti-American brigade and when that happens we must recognise that there are certain disadvantages that will impose on us."
A country with a truly principled and independent foreign policy must be willing to bear whatever disadvantages will come once the threatening Great Power is acting unethically.
I know you might say that is idealistic foolishness, but I believe there are some things worthy suffering and dying for. I reject the vulgar utilitarianism which seems to inform many people's - and nation's - decisions.
I agree that Chavez'scampaign against the U.S. is hostile, unnecessarily polemical and downright infantile in certain instances. Chavez has been very unstatesmanlike. It is clear he has some grandiose notions about himself, and his Bolivarian obsession is only one indication of that.
The international community deserves representation on the Security Council which is sober, reasoned, principled, unbiased and devoid of bitterness and propaganda. Venezuela under Chavez is not likely to offer that type of leadership at the U.N.'s highest level.
As to whether CARICOM goes with the U.S. choice of Guatemala is another matter.
We should not go with Guatemala because we are pressured to do so by the U.S., nor go with Venezuela because of Chavez's economic clout. He and Bush can keep their oil and dollars and we should keep our dignity.
There is one recently-published book which I recommend highly to Golding for his foreign policy reading. It is titled The Global Cold War and traces the Cold War from its beginnings right to the present day war on terror.
It is essential reading on U.S. foreign policy in the Third World. (It was published by Cambridge University Press).
I commend the following words in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs ('Latin America's Left Turn') to both Golding and U.S. Embassy officials here: "Under no circumstances should a anyone accept the division of the hemisphere into two camps - for the United States, against the United States - because under such a split, the Americas themselves always lose out ... now that the Cold War is over, (this) should never happen again."
Ian Boyne is a veteran jouranlist. Email him at ianboyne1@yahoo.com.
