Taking Note

BACK IN THE GLORY DAYS OF THE PANAMA invasion and the Gulf war, it became commonplace for cynics to comment that the United States had adopted a “designated enemy” foreign policy. In the effortless segaie from Cold War to New World Order, one villain after another was set up to absorb the righteous anger of the U.S. electorate. At times, of course, the enemy was truly villainous, but that never seemed to be the point. Rather, the demonization of Third-World revolutionaries, fundamentalists and strong men seemed to function as a compelling diversion which allowed policy makers to pursue the more fundamental-though perhaps less supportable-goals of U.S. policy. Indeed, that diversion may have complemented at least one real policy goal-the de-nationalization and global deregulation of economic activity. Demonizing ourThird-World enemies may have created just enough jingoism to ensure that an undue respect for international law would not impede the free mobility of international capital, and that the mobility of capital would never be mirrored by the easy mobility of Third-World labor. A LL THIS HAS RESULTED IN THE RESURgence of a political culture of intolerance, a culture in which we are encouraged to define ourselves not according to who we are, but who we are not. A concomitant outcome has been a growing list of enemies and outcasts-foreign and domestic-to be excluded from political dialogue and the social compact. Perhaps most dangerous of all, the rule of international and domestic law-shaped by years of political and social dialogue-is taking second place to a crude arrogance, and the impersonal laws of the market. The designation of enemies is not-in itself-much of a policy, but it plays well at home, as long as the “victories” are easy, the demonization sticks, and the perceived costs are low. We’ve seen it work in Panama, Libya, the Persian Gulf, and for four days this summer, at the Republican National Convention. When keynote speaker Sen. Phil Gramm impugned the loyalty of the Democrats who voted against the Gulf war, he added-in a chilling aside-that the vote didn’t matter anyway since, when it came to patriotism, the Constitution could easily be rewritten. “We ultimately shamed enough Democrats into supporting the President,” said Gramm. “But using his constitutional powers, the President could have and would have acted without the support of Congress.” HIS REPUBLICAN ARROGANCE, THIS IMPAtience with compromise and dialogue, this curious contempt for the rule of law, and the corollary disrespect for the rights of the weak, were reflected in a decision handed down this spring by the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s a decision thathas caused special concern in Latin America, in a case that involves U.S. arrogance, Mexican weakness, and some easily demonized individuals-some of the most brutal in the hemisphere. On April 3, 1990, bounty hunters in Guadalajara, Mexico kidnapped Mexican physician Humberto Alvarez-Machain, who was wanted in the United States in connection with the 1985 torture and murder ofEnrique Camarena, an agent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), stationed in Mexico. The kidnappers delivered him-for a fee-to DEA agents in E1 Paso ,Texas, who arrested him. Alvarez-Machain was brought to Los Angeles for trial, where a federal judge ordered that he be returned to Mexico because his abduction violated the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico. The decision was sustained on appeal. On June 16 of this year, however, the Supreme Court overruled the lower courts, opining that the kidnapping of Alvarez-Machain was constitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said there had been no treaty violation since the agreement doesn’t specifically bar unilateral abductions. Justice Stephens, in mocking dissent, suggested that if U.S.-hired operatives had simply executed Alvarez-Machain, that too would have been permissible because it was “not explicitly prohibited by the treaty.” The crime with which Alvarez-Machain is charged is a particularly loathsome one. DEA agent Camarena and a Mexican associate were abducted in Guadalajara on Feb-ruary 7, 1985. They were allegedly taken to the house of drug tycoon Rafael Caro Quintero, where they were repeatedly tortured and eventually killed. Alvarez-Machain is charged with prolonging Camarena’s life so that the kidnappers could continue to question and torture him. T HE COURT’S DECISION IS DISTURBING, NOT out of sympathy for torturers and drug traffickers, but because the Reagan and Bush administrations-and their Court appointees-have raised reflexive patriotism, and the attendant disregard of legal niceties, to new heights. In our domestic social relations, and in the projection of U.S. power throughout the world-especially in our own hemisphere-an “us against them” dynamic has prevailed, which has seldom been equalled in peacetime. Camarena’s torturers-like Noriega and Sadaam Hussein-have few defenders. The only defense they deserve is the defense of due process and international law, which, for those of us on the democratic Left, is simply self-defense. Intolerance in U.S. political culture-the red scare of the ’20s and McCarthyism in the ’50s-has flowered during periods of historical weakness for the Left. And it will signal our present historical weakness if intolerance triumphs this time around. This year’s Republican campaign–a campaign of intolerance and resentment-plays to the worst that’s in us, and bodes ill for our collective future. The Democrats may be nothing to write home about, but the Republicans-in the White House and on the Supreme Court-have given us plenty of reasons to vote. FRS