The more or less pleasant cajolery didn't work. The coarse arm twisting hasn't been doing much good, either. So now, the Bush administration -- in its campaign to put the squeeze on the "Middle Six" United Nations Security Council members still on the fence with regard to a second UN resolution approving war against Iraq -- has commenced a whispering campaign designed to incite anti-Mexican sentiment or action in the United States.
That's a big claim, it's true. What evidence supports it? In the Feb. 27 Economist, that magazine's correspondent in Mexico City reports that "a stream of American officials, sounding much more hostile than sorry, have been trekking south to argue the point" that American banking and corporate boardrooms, which obviously have considerable clout in Mexico's affairs, would look askance at a "no" vote by Mexico and pull back from financial commitments. So far, just the usual browbeating. But then the correspondent delivers the following astonishing couplet: "One American diplomat has given warning that a Mexican No could 'stir up feelings' against Mexicans in the United States. He draws comparisons with the Japanese-Americans who were interned after 1941, and wonders whether Mexico 'wants to stir the fires of jingoism during a war.'"
Say what? Mexican American internment camps forinnocent people who, by a trick of fate, happen to share the bloodlines of a diplomat whocasts a vote on 42nd Street? This can't happen in America, at least in theAmerica we've all known for the last 50 years, so it's hard to take even remotelyseriously. Just one crazy ideologue going off the reservation, getting a littlecarried away with himself, right?
Then came the president's Monday interview with representatives of several U.S. news organizations. I take thisfrom a report by Copley News Service's George E. Condon Jr. that was posted Tuesday on theInternet. Condon writes the interview up as follows:
With the Mexican press full of a debate over the ramifications of a vote against the resolution, [George W.] Bush added, "But, nevertheless, I don't expect there to be significant retribution fromthe government." His emphasis was on the word "government," raisingthe possibility of adverse reaction to Mexico from America's businesscommunity and average citizens. Making that point, he cited what he called"an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French." With many Americans unhappy at French resistance to a war in Iraq, thepresident said there has developed "a backlash against the French, notstirred up by anybody except by the people."
Let's parse these sentences. No retribution from the "government." If indeed Bushemphasized the word in that way, as Condon reports, obviously he meant forit to linger there in the room, and for journalists to look at one anotherwondering, "Hmmm, what does he mean by that?" Then he continues. Heobserves an "interesting phenomena." (Put the incorrect use of the pluralaside.) We might call this, as surely his champions will, a harmlesspresidential musing. But presidents don't muse publicly. They know better, or ought to.Their words, and their actions, have impact. Was it an accident those monthsago when Bush just happened to be carrying Bernard Goldberg's book Bias in full view of the White House photog pool? The right wing sure didn't think so then. Its members brayed for a week about how wonderful it was that Bush was sending such an unmistakable message to the liberals. Presidents don't muse. They say things with intention.
Finally, Bush invokes a "backlash" against theFrench -- and a pure and unimpeachable backlash at that, because it aroseorganically, not through provocation by some propaganda minister or public-relations flack but sprung directly from the soul of the people. Is the president of the United Statessuggesting here that, if Mexico votes "no" at the Security Council meeting nextweek, it will be entirely understandable for Americans to initiate a backlashagainst Mexicans in their midst? That category "Americans," of course, includes nearly22 million Mexicans in the United States, a considerable majority of them legalcitizens. Is there to be a backlash against these Americans by other Americans?
Is a democratically elected leader (well, almost) implying that a backlashagainst some of his own constituents just might somehow be proper? Or maybe he"just" means against illegals along the border. Or perhaps he "only"means that Americans should boycott Mexican products, which, since 90 percentof Mexico's exports come to the United States, would pretty much kill off the wholeMexican economy. Nothing much shocks me from this administration anymore,but this may be a new low. And, given the contentious history of U.S.-Mexicanrelations on immigration and identity questions, it's playing with fire.American anger at the French is one thing; it mostly comes down to buyingdomestic wine and poking merciless fun at ze funny 'ah beets zey have.
American anger at Mexico and Mexicans has, of course, taken a few somewhatuglier forms over the years. But I thought presidents were supposed to oppose thatsort of thing, not foment it (especially when the Senate leadership of one's own party is calling the other party "anti-Hispanic" because it's a useful label ina judicial fight).
It's starting to look as if there may not be a secondUN resolution at all; the Bushies are figuring out that they don't have the ninevotes and may just dump the whole thing and get on with the war regardless. But if thereis a vote and Mexico holds fast to its "no," just watch how thoroughly the Mexico-backlash trope creeps into the dialogue. First a few "our ex-friend Mexico" pieces from servile op-ed writers.Then maybe a Wall Street Journal editorial counseling a tightening of Mexico's lines of credit. A dose of Fox-bashing (Vicente) from FOX (news channel). Then a willing mainstream media, always happy to advance the administration's ugly whispering campaigns -- against France, against Al Gore and his "lies," against Alan Greenspan after his dour Capitol Hill testimony two weeks ago. (I mean, these people whisper themselves hoarse.) And in no time, Mexico -- which was, remember, this president's great buddy back when he desperately needed a foreign-policy buddy -- will join the enemies list. High time. We need one in our hemisphere.
Michael Tomasky's columns appear every Wednesday at TAP Online.
