When is it “right”?When is it “right”?

Given the scaled-down nature of the United States’ engagement with Caribbean states in recent years and its obvious disagreement with certain foreign policy positions of the Vincentian government, it was nice to have US Ambassador to the Eastern Caribbean, Mary Ourisman, on our shores for a two-day visit. One can only hope that it marks a heightened positive interest in US-SVG relations.{{more}}

There are many misconceptions in several quarters that those of us who, from time to time, may disagree with certain foreign policy actions on the part of the US government are “anti-America.” In fact, that misconception is in keeping with the irresponsible utterance of outgoing US President George Bush that “those who are not with us are against us.” Far from it. To oppose the US invasion of Iraq or Panama or Grenada, or its criminal bombing of the home of an African leader (Col. Gaddafi of Libya) does not make one opposed to the United States or hostile to its people. It is merely expressing one’s lawful right to disagree, just as those who supported such actions equally have the legitimate right to do so.

That having been said, I was watching a TV discussion programme earlier this week, during which one of the panelists joked that the US government seems to have an infatuation with “I”. She pointed to Iran, Iraq and Israel, key planks of US foreign policy and wondered which “I” would be next. In turn, one can only hope that the American electorate would demonstrate such a fondness for the “I” by electing the Senator from Illinois in November. That alone will, of course, not solve the world’s problems, but at least it can contribute to more constructive approaches towards solutions.

One major “I” in the foreign policy mix of the US State Department is quite clearly Iran. This writer found it instructive that the issue most highlighted in the press coverage of Ambassador Ourisman’s visit to St. Vincent and the Grenadines was our country’s newly established relations with the Islamic republic of Iran. According to those reports, the American ambassador is quoted as saying that “now is not the time to engage in business with Iran” and that “(SVG) being too heavily involved with Iran now is not a good thing.”

The standard arguments were used to back it up-Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran’s involvement in Iraq endangering the lives of US soldiers; Iran having a deplorable standing in the international community etc. etc. One can agree or disagree with those views, just as one can support or oppose the US war in Iraq, the US embargo of Cuba, which is bordering on 50 years, or US position on climate change, but does that mean we should not have diplomatic relations with the United States of America? And, for argument’s sake, who is not just endangering, but culpable of the deaths and maiming of young US soldiers, the Iranian mullahs or the Bush-Cheney clique?

Again, what is “being too heavily involved with Iran?” Opening of non-resident diplomatic relations? Some promise of yet-to-be-defined assistance with the airport project? Maybe some US assistance in that regard would save P.M. Gonsalves some political worry by not having to seek such aid from other quarters! And, who is to decide when is the “right time” to engage with Iran? Not too long ago, the same Gonsalves was berated for a Libyan connection. Now, look who was Gaddafi’s last major visitor-none other than US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

Libya was named by President George W. Bush as a member of the so-called “Axis of Evil”, along with Iran. Then, it was wrong for Gonsalves to engage Libya, even though former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was Gaddafi’s guest. Now for strategic reasons, including trying to head off Russian oil giant Gazprom, which is negotiating a deal with Libya and its new Italian partner, ENI, which could see them monopolizing the North African energy market, the USA finds it “right” to bed down with Libya. Condoleezza, whom Gaddafi reportedly called his “darling black woman” and to whom he fondly referred to as “Leeza,” is reported to have explained that the USA has “no permanent enemies”.

Neither have we. St. Vincent and the Grenadines had every much a right as the United States of America to choose its own friends. New friends such as Iran do not mean we support every action of the mullahs, or that we support “terrorism” or the like. It does not mean that we in any way are unfriendly to the USA. Why should Germany and France and most of the European Union buy from and sell to Iran in billions of dollars, have embassies there, but we can’t open non-resident diplomatic relations?

Those who espouse subservience to US interests are not acting in the best interests of our own country. We do not seek to antagonize our longstanding friend to the north by spreading our own wings. We appreciate their sensitivities, even if we do not always agree with them. But, please, do not try and choose our friends for us. And, finally, those who peddle backwardness that engaging with Iran means that we are against Israel, using all sorts of ridiculous Biblical quotations, are doing a disservice to our people and to truth. If Israel is “God’s chosen”, who are we, the people who are “darker than blue?” Yes, say it, “sons and daughter of Lucifer”? Let us put all that crap behind us. This is the 21st century. Let us use our God-given talents to promote wisdom, not encourage ignorance.

Renwick Rose is a community activist and social commentator.