WaPo: Bush threatened allies with trade reprisals for anti-war stance

The Washington Posthas a story out about a new book by a top diplomat from Chile, who was heavily involved in negotiations in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

He paints a picture of Bush Administration oifficials strong-arming countries to back the invasion and even threatening trade reprisals.

The rough-and-tumble diplomatic strategy has generated lasting "bitterness" and "deep mistrust" in Washington's relations with allies in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, Heraldo Mu¿oz, Chile's ambassador to the United Nations, writes in his book "A Solitary War: A Diplomat's Chronicle of the Iraq War and Its Lessons," set for publication next month.

"In the aftermath of the invasion, allies loyal to the United States were rejected, mocked and even punished" for their refusal to back a U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein's government, Mu¿oz writes.

Bush didn't just send his caporegimes out to bust kneecaps. He got involved personally.

He decided he was going to make a free trade pact hostage to Chile's stubborn refusal to go along with his War of Lies.

In the days after the invasion, the National Security Council's top Latin American expert, John F. Maisto, invited Mu¿oz to the White House to convey the message to Lagos, that his country's position at the United Nations had jeopardized prospects for the speedy Senate ratification of a free-trade pact. "Chile has lost some influence," he said. "President Bush is truly disappointed with Lagos, but he is furious with Fox. With Mexico, the president feels betrayed; with Chile, frustrated and let down."

Of course, Bush couldn't even do that right.

Within a few months, he was asking for help from anybody and everybody -- including Chile -- when the mess he made in Iraq started to unfold. And the trade deal was signed.

Amazingly, there are still people who wonder why the rest of the world shakes its head at what's going on over here.

•  Tip jar

  by quaoar on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:24:58 PM PDT

•  Isn't That How You Deal With Your Friends

  when they don't agree with you? Instead of talking to them like adults and trying to move them in your direction, just threaten them. I mean that has always worked so well for me.

  [snark off ....]

  by webranding on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:32:51 PM PDT

•  Coalition of the unwilling

  by LRT on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:36:47 PM PDT

  •  Coalition of the intimidated

    by quaoar on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:43:21 PM PDT

    •  When You Are The Top "Dog On The Block"

      from a military and economic POV other folks get really pissed when you tell them about it all the time. Even more when you attempt to use that power to force people/nations to do things they don't want to do.

      It is pretty telling we couldn't convince other nations on the facts, but instead had to attempt to threaten them to get want we wanted. But them again nothing, I mean nothing Bush does surprises me at this point.

      by webranding on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM PDT

      •  Our allies will have to figure out how much

        they hate us.

        by LRT on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:11:54 PM PDT

    •  Martin of Canada said no to Iraq

      he lost the next election.

      by ohcanada on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:01:37 PM PDT

      •  **Chretien and Martin didn't agree,,nt

        by ohcanada on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:05:03 PM PDT

•  this was no secret nt

  by parryander on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:37:53 PM PDT

  •  It was to many Americans who trusted CNN.

    The more we hear, the more stories told, the more likely we are to reach those sleeping Americans. Keep those books, cards and letters coming.

    by nehark on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:29:35 PM PDT

•  Wow.

  Every time I think I've realized how bad this adminstration has been; something new comes out to revise my opinion downward.

  by BlatantLiberal on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:38:08 PM PDT

•  We've been playing games for a hundred years

  The world is starting to organize against us.

  by ghett on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:38:19 PM PDT

•  Regime of Thugs

  just like the mob. No differences.

  by skywriter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:44:07 PM PDT

•  threats weren't necessary,

  all mexico & canada were asking for was believable and credible evidence.   They would have jumped on board, no questions asked, but... well, at least Bush had enough willing senators to back him up on his mideast adventure.

  by soros on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:49:28 PM PDT

•  Jesus Christ.

  Is there anything this adminstration did that wasn't ridiculously evil?  It's like they can't even understand the concept of good.  And all the time screaming "pick a side, we're at war!"

  Fucking traitors.

  by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:54:48 PM PDT

•  America used to be a shining light to the world

  I think, because they believed what they saw in the movies over the years. We portrayed ourselves as heros and saviors.  Now they see the truth.  A lot of the citizens are stupid and thugish.

  by bcashncali on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:00:14 PM PDT

•  Wait

  Aren't most of you guys out there against free trade agreements and think they're horrendous things for developing countries?  Now you're upset because Bush threatened to withhold one from Chile (and then didn't) because they didn't go along with the war.  Calling withholding an FTA "trade sanctions" and then opposing FTAs is a wee odd.

  by davidkarlsson on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:18:09 PM PDT

  •  It's the blackmailing part they find galling.

    That said, I don't find anything particularly galling about this.  These weren't sanctions; it was threat to not sign a treaty.  Had we, say, threatened to raise tariffs or something on an entity with whom we already had a trade treaty, that'd be another thing altogether.

    by burrow owl on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:34:44 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      I wouldn't consider not improving trade relations to be a real sanction.  It was an empty threat anyway, we knew the Chile FTA was at least as much in our interest in theirs and it made sense to move ahead.  One of our more successful FTAs in my opinion.  In the end, Chile got to stand up for its own views and it all turned out well in the end.  For Chile, anyway.  Not so much for us.

      But I do find it galling that anti-trade types consider not signing an FTA to be a trade sanction when it fits their own purposes, but oppose FTAs when it doesn't.

      by davidkarlsson on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:50:21 PM PDT

  •  SOP "Diary of an Economic Hitman"

    No news here.  

    by Habanero on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:01:05 PM PDT

•  Color me surprised.

  NOT.

  by Sassy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:21:20 PM PDT

•  No finesse whatsoever

  Can you imagine being an international diplomat and having a meeting scheduled with John Bolton? You dread it for days, and it's all you can do not to wring his neck.

  by Ivey476 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:56:15 PM PDT

•  Great Diary

  how soon we forget..the coalition of the willing.

  by ohcanada on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:59:22 PM PDT

•  the part about using the german embassies secure

  room and the rage at the germans was sad

  by nathguy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:28:29 PM PDT