The Fletcher School

Prepared by William Moomaw, professor of international environmental policy at The Fletcher School. 

The following items are keyed to specific points made by Ms. Albright in the Commencement address that she delivered at the Fletcher School.

1. “I am proud of the efforts by the Administration and allied forces, but I am upset that the world community thus far rejected requests from Afghan leaders to broaden and enlarge the international presence.”

This appears to refer to the overwhelming role being played by US and British forces in Afghanistan, and their unwillingness to share that responsibility with UN and other forces. While some responsibilities have been taken over by Australian and a few other European forces, the “coalition” is mostly US dominated with British support.

2) “…on some important issues, the Bush team seems to be suffering from bipolar disorder. They talk about the importance of alliances in Asia and Europe and the failure to employ alliances on matters of mutual security concern.”

This is a major theme of the speech. The “bipolar disorder” reference seems to be addressing the often stated position of both domestic and international critics of the administration that it is unilateralist in its approach to international relations. 

When international cooperation is in the US interest such as the war on terrorism, the administration demands that other nations are either with us or against us. Yet as India has just complained, the US does not seem interested in other nation’s terrorist problems. 

The US is not listening to either NATO or other strategic allies who criticize US policy on missile defense or on its approach to rooting out terrorism. The US threat to go into any country to root out terrorism (as defined by us) seems like an infringement on their sovereignty by other nations. Yet the US is not utilizing any of the strategic defense alliances other than getting NATO to define Sept. 11 as an attack on the alliance, the US has largely left NATO out of the response. There is even speculation that the US is largely abandoning NATO for a unilateral military strategy not only on terrorism, but in addressing Iraq, Iran and North Korea (the “Axis of Evil”). The lack of enthusiasm for this approach and the clear message from the Arab world to VP Cheney was that attacking Iraq is unacceptable, and solving the Middle East crisis should be the primary goal.

3) “They advocate a more open system of world trade, while imposing protectionist tariffs on steel, and backing vastly increased subsidies for American corporate farms.”

This is a clear reference to the decision to place 30% tariffs on certain types of steel imports that compete with uneconomic, older steel mills in the U.S. This is viewed as highly hypocritical by European, Asian and developing countries who often find the US pressuring them to reduce tariffs and open their markets to US goods and services. This action was seen as a short term political tactic to win support from labor in a few states that undermines longer term strategies to create a world of freer trade. Economists have pointed out that in addition to undermining larger US trade interests, the cost in higher steel prices means substantially higher costs to US manufacturers of autos, appliances and other steel products. 

Canada is similarly offended by the tariff recently paced on Canadian softwoods imported into the US. The US claims they receive unfair government subsidies, yet the US grants similar benefits to US companies who receive low cost concessions to cut on federal forest lands.

The reference to increased agricultural subsidies is to the signing into law of the farm bill that provides greater subsidies to large corporate farms than in previous legislation by failing to heed the wishes of many in Congress to place tighter limits on the size of subsidy payments. The availability of individual subsidy payments on the Internet has made it all too clear that it has been and now will continue to be large corporate farms that get federal subsidies rather than smaller farmers. 

4) “…fighting AIDS while placing unwise restrictions on life-saving programs for promoting reproductive health.”

This is a clear reference to US opposition to funding the UNFPA which provides support for family planning assistance in developing countries, and the total collapse of US support for family planning as part of its foreign assistance programs. The opposition comes from conservative and antiabortion groups and members of the Congress who argue that some UN funds might go to China and other countries that support abortion. In fact funds go primarily for conventional contraception and reproductive health. Critics of the administration (and Ms. Albright) point to the number of mothers and children who die unnecessarily because life-saving reproductive health measures are unavailable because the US is not providing funds and is blocking the operation of multilateral programs of the UN and other international agencies. Interestingly, private organizations and foundations are increasing their support of family planning, and even the conservative Sen. Helms has recognized the need to support AIDS programs especially for children.

5) “They warn about the dangers posed by ballistic missiles, but needlessly delayed negotiations with North Korea on how to reduce that very threat.

The Bush administration scuttled ongoing discussions with North Korea on missile development, and may have undone the decade long effort to dissuade Korea from developing nuclear weapons. In January, North Korea was designated a member of the “Axis of Evil” by President Bush in his State of the Union address. Dean Bosworth of the Fletcher School headed the efforts to dissuade North Korea from developing its own nuclear capabilities both as ambassador to South Korea and as head of an agency that was to have implemented the only negotiated agreement on weapons limitations and nuclear power development that has been negotiated with North Korea. This agreement now seems to be in danger of collapsing.

6) "They talk about the “importance of the rule of law. But seems allergic treaties to treaties designed to treaties designed to strengthen the rule of law in areas such as money laundering, biological weapons, crimes against humanity and the environment.”

The four items mentioned are all international agreements that the US has pulled out of during the Bush administration. 

• Money laundering is not only a component of international crime, but has been demonstrated to be central to the operations of the operations of terrorist organizations including those of Bin Ladin and the attack upon the US on September 11
• The US administration has made elimination of “weapons of mass destruction” a cornerstone of its policies, yet it has announced that it will not support the treaty on biological weapons that has been many years in negotiations. The main objection seems to be that the inspection provisions might provide access to private company processes and intellectual property of US biotech firms. The administration also is making similar arguments about the chemical weapons treaty that was ratified by the Senate during the Clinton administration. Most of those issues were addressed to the satisfaction of the US chemical industry at the time.
• Crimes against humanity are to be addressed but the International Criminal Court that has been ratified by more than the required 60 nations, and will enter into force on July 1. The US had signed the agreement that it worked hard to shape over the years, but has not ratified the treaty by the Senate as required by the Senate. It is argued by the administration and some members of Congress that US citizens should be exempt from war crimes charges by an international court despite the fact that the US has supported each of the courts set up to try leaders from the Second World War through the conflicts and crimes in the Balkans and Rwanda. The Bush administration has just sent a letter to the Secretary General of the UN stating that the United States is “unsigning “the treaty.. There is no precedent for this in international law, and no provision for it in the US is actively working to undermine the new court and Congressman Tom Delay has introduced legislation that would allow the use of military force to remove any American who might come before the court. The International Criminal Court is to be located in the Hague which is the capital of the Netherlands, a US NATO ally.
• The major environmental treaty to which MS. Albright is referring to is the Kyoto Protocol to address global warming and climate change. The Bush administration has angered its allies, including Tony Blair of the UK, by announcing that the Us would not ratify this Protocol that calls upon all industrial countries to reduce their emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and the release of other gases from industry and agriculture that trap heat and warm the planet. Again, the administration has threatened to “unsign” the agreement that has not yet been ratified by the Senate. The importance of signing a treaty, even if it is not ratified is that it engages the signing nation in the ongoing process of developing that treaty, and loosely commits it to not undermining its provisions. Hence “unsigning” is seen as an active attempt on the part of the US to undermine the efforts of the world to address a global problem to which the US is the leading contributor with one-quarter of the global emissions. The US is a party to the umbrella Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed by President Bush’s father in Rio ten years ago, and unanimously ratified by the US Senate a few months later. The US is accused by other countries of not living up to its commitments under this treaty.

8. “…see alliances and agreements not as platforms for progress, but rather as restraints to hold the US back…”

The administration is accused by its domestic and international critics of supporting international treaties when they suit the convenience of the US, but not when they inconvenience specific or altered goals. Hence the US is (legally) pulling out of the Antiballistic missile treaty with Russia to build a system that would violate its principles. The US is selectively applying provisions of trade treaties when it helps US corporate and agricultural interests, and then applying restrictions on other countries imports or subsidies that undermine the goals of international trade. The withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty and the dropping of domestic support of controls on carbon dioxide by President Bush has created major recriminations from Europe and the developing world just as the US is looking for support for its international effort to fight terrorism. In fact in the month following September 11, Prime Minister Tony Blair was explicit in calling for international cooperation to fight terrorism and global warming often in the same sentence. The US administration and some members of Congress hold the position that US interests should not be bound by international agreements as these infringe upon US sovereignty.