failing the global test

vanity | jpf

[jpf]

“Franklin now had Vergennes’s (the French foreign minister) blessing to negotiate directly and alone with England. Paradoxically, Vergennes had no qualms about letting Franklin do this because he full expected that the Americans would adhere to the instructions from Congress and consult with France every step of the way. He could assume, therefore, that France would hold some veto power over the outcome. He was not a little angry when, at the end, he found out that he had been deliberately and decisively outmaneuvered by Franklin, Jay, and Adams.”

“The Long Fuse” by Don Cook, page 365. An example of Benjamin Franklin failing the global test and thank God.

When the American colonies, by then states by right of law and blood, had successfully won their independence from England the peace proved as challenging as the war. For the United States it seemed she had as much to fear from her allies as from her enemy. France, Spain, and the Netherlands had different and, in some ways, competing agendas from her which made the construction of a peace agreement difficult. The future of the new country rested upon fashioning a peace that would leave her with securable borders and favorable economic terms. But these concerns were last on the list of priorities for her allies. Spain wanted part of the territory to the west of the new country. France and Spain wanted to hold off any peace agreement until they had jointly captured Gibraltar from the British, even while America’s most important port, New York, lay occupied. And Ben Franklin, in Paris, was hamstrung by an order from Congress forcing him to negotiate only with the “knowledge and concurrence” of the French. Being of sound mind and body, Franklin and his fellow peace commissioners ignored Congress and the French foreign minister and negotiated a favorable peace for America. In the end France had no choice but to accept it. History could have been very different otherwise. I thought of this as I heard John Kerry advocate a global test for future military operations and diplomacy in the Presidential debate. On the surface it sounds nice, it really does. What could make more sense than acting in concert with the world? The problem is, almost no military or political action could ever pass such a test. It is a recipe for inaction and in a war, that spells disaster. Take for example Bill Clinton’s 1998 bombing of the VX gas factory in Sudan. The Clinton administration at the time believed that the plant was manufacturing VX gas (a deadly nerve gas) for Al-Qaeda with the help of Iraqi scientists. So they bombed it and destroyed the plant. In the days that followed nations across the world protested at the UN, all of the Muslim countries of Africa had mass protests in the streets, French magazines featured angry articles decrying the “gangsterism of American imperialism” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean. I can only assume it loses steam in the translation. And all of that with a Democrat in the White House. Sudan failed the global test and as a result the globe is a safer place with less VX gas in the hands of Osama Bin Laden. You know, sorry. But passing the test is harder than that. In 1986 after a series of terrorist bombings in Europe the Reagan administration decided then was the time to bomb terrorist training camps in Libya. Not that Libya ever really tried to hide the fact that they were training terrorists or anything, but France once again objected and refused to let US planes cross French airspace on their way to delivering our surprise for a certain odd looking, cross dressing, Libyan colonel. Global test failed, terrorist regime warned. Still not convinced that a global test would equal a global veto? Why, do the French in particular or Europeans in general seem easy to convince? How about the Iranian hostage crisis? That should be an easy global test. I mean really, what country in its right mind would object to the absolute right of another country to rescue diplomats wrongly imprisoned? Well… On the morning of April 25th 1980, the official reaction by the Soviet foreign minister to the failed rescue attempt was two words, “A provocation.” In other words, storming the sovereign territory of the United States and taking 53 hostages, college prank, but trying to free those same hostages is an act of war. That makes sense. We could expect as much from a state that year after year produced 200 million pairs of shoes, all of them size 12. But how about Europe, surely they must have been more reasonable? Don’t bet on it. This is from a BBC report on April 25th, 1980; “In Europe, there was shock and surprise that the mission had taken place without advance consultation of America's allies. EEC governments have recently agreed to threaten sanctions against Iran in the hope of preventing the use of force.” No ‘sorry about those people that fried in the desert mate’ or anything, ‘just why the hell didn’t you tell us?’ Apparently the Europeans wanted advance notice, that way the Ayatollah could have been there to personally shake hands with the chopper pilots as the landed. The rescue mission took place over six months after the hostages were taken and yet Europe was “threatening” sanctions. Thanks guys, that ought to do it. All of history tells us that a global test is an invitation for countries that don’t have our best interests at heart to take advantage of us. It would be a sign on our forehead that says, “sucker.” It is quite possibly the stupidest thing that has ever been said by a Presidential candidate and I’m including James Buchanan in that. It would be, three words, a colossal blunder. And it is reason number 457 (or thereabouts) why John Kerry should never be President of the United States.