A Guy’s View: Sovereignty and foreign policy in a hostile world
The powerful countries of the world have always exerted unequal influence in global matters. We recently felt the unfair power of the European Union when they decided to blacklist Barbados and a number of other developing countries over their tax policies. Now it is America’s turn to remind us that all other countries only exist to legitimise what America wants.
American Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, was inelegant enough to openly declare that since that country is the largest contributor to the United Nations’ budget, all other member states are expected to vote as America would wish them to vote. If they do not, they would be targeted for revenge by America.
Earlier this month, President Donald Trump announced that he would move America’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. This instantly and predictably sparked violence in the streets of Palestine. This was in line with what has been repeatedly said by a number of observers, that Donald Trump is a threat to world peace.
No responsible spokesman on any part of the globe thought that Trump’s decision was a sensible one. It was universally accepted that it would make the chances of peace in the Middle East more difficult, if not impossible.
Aware of the threat of destabilisation of the entire region, a resolution was brought to the floor of the General Assembly of the United Nations condemning the decision of the United States. Ahead of the vote on the matter, Nikki Haley threatened the world with vengeance if they supported the resolution.
“As you consider your vote, I want you to know that the President and US take this vote personally,” Haley wrote in an e-mail that was obtained by Foreign Policy. “The President will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those countries who voted against us. We will take note of each and every vote on this issue.”
As unfortunate as her statement seemed, Ambassador Haley was not out on a limb without official support. President Trump was reported as saying, “I liked the message that Nikki sent yesterday at the United Nations to all of those nations that take our money and then they vote against us in the Security Council, they vote against us potentially at the Assembly,” Trump said. “They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars and then they vote against us. Well, we’re watching those votes. Let ’em vote against us.”
Trump referred to an earlier vote of the Security Council, the 15 member body which really dictates what happens at the UN. They voted 14 to 1 to demand that the US rescinds its decision on Jerusalem. Of course, the only vote against the resolution came from the US. That country’s veto power ensured that, although everyone else was in favour, the vote was not carried.
After listening to the threats, in the General Assembly, 128 countries, including Barbados, voted in favour of the resolution to condemn America on this issue. Eight countries voted with America – Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo.
Thirty-five countries abstained. Included among them were Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Jamaica, Haiti and Trinidad and Tobago. St. Lucia did not participate at all.
In addition to the earlier warning, the US threatened to stop giving developmental aid to countries that voted for the resolution. This was called out as bullying. “We were all asked to vote no or face the consequences,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said before Thursday’s vote. “Some even threatened to cut development aid. This is bullying. It is unethical to think that the votes and dignity of member states are for sale.”
This opens the debate on the agenda behind the US giving aid to countries. Some light may be shed on this by looking at how that aid is distributed. The top recipients are as follows:
Israel, 3.10 billion dollars, Afghanistan, 1.51 billion dollars, Egypt 1.46 billion dollars, Jordan 1.00 billion dollars, Pakistan 803.8 million dollars, Kenya, 630.3 million dollars, Nigeria 607.5 million dollars, Tanzania 590.6 million dollars, Ukraine 513.5 million dollars, Uganda 469.1 million dollars.
The story this tells is that American aid has nothing to do with who is liked or disliked, but with promoting American interests around the world. Haley described American funding of the UN as an investment. They are not doing anyone a favour, but feathering their own nest, including the benefit of keeping the UN in New York. America has no stauncher allies than its Caribbean neighbours, and yet this region is not a major beneficiary of American aid. That is because there is no threat to America coming from this region. Maybe we need another Fidel Castro or Maurice Bishop in the region.
Coming on the heels of the European Union blacklisting, this should be a red flag for countries like Barbados. Our traditional dependence on foreign assistance makes us very cautious whenever we hold views that run counter to those of our allies, but this has not usually silenced us. Generally speaking, Barbados’ foreign affairs have stuck to the principle of friends of all and satellites of none. But we should not expect this of any other nation.
If Barbados is to maintain any semblance of sovereignty, it may now have to be more determined to live out the creed it professes. It may not always be comfortable standing on principle in hostile waters. It is against our nature, however, to behave like some of our neighbours and go wherever the wind blows.
For some less principled countries, it may be like being caught between a rock and a hard place: the rock of conscience and the hard place of standing your ground against a bully. In the past, where the bullies of the world had a trace of conscience and were too ashamed to advertise their dirty acts, extreme behaviour might have been moderated. That is no longer the case. Shame is no more and conscience is non-existent.
For small states, the world in 2017 is a more dangerous place than it ever was in recent history. And it seems that it will only grow worse in the foreseeable future.