Three apparently unrelated events took place in June. The International
Press Association, which defends the freedom of the press, met in Moscow.
It faced two problems. The first was government control of many
newspapers. Not a single major Nigerian newspaper was judged eligible, so
their delegates were not accepted. The free newspapers are shoe-string
enterprises, their staff living in danger and penury. Equally depressing
was the discussion of a report put out by Harvard University on the steady
further decline of U.S. interest in international affairs.`
The second event was the death of Barry Goldwater, who was lamented almost
as much as Frank Sinatra. Goldwater was a popular, even beloved person, so
there was almost no mention of his shortcomings. His school record was
miserable, and his knowledge of international affairs was dismal. He
praised Joseph McCarthy and opposed the ratification of the test ban
treaty. He questioned whether Reagan was a real conservative, and he ran
against Lyndon Johnson in 1964 on a wave of denunciations of "Rockefeller
Republicans", condemned as dangerous Eastern internationalists. At the San
Francisco convention, his supporters expressed their hatred for Rockefeller
by hissing and booing. It reminded one of President Wilson against
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, except that Lodge was a highly educated Brahmin
whom Goldwater presumably despised.
The third discouraging event was the Rome meeting of the United Nations
convened to establish a War Crimes Tribunal with effective powers.
American opinion generally opposes it on the grounds that it might try
Americans, especially American soldiers. Jurisdiction over soldiers abroad
has always been a thorny issue. Moreover, if the Court ruled that the use
of nuclear weapons was a crime against humanity, it would change the whole
picture, perhaps for the better. These are a few of the legitimate
American concerns about the Court, However, the real reason for American
opposition to the Court seems to be old-fashioned isolationism.
Fear of American public opinion and pressure groups explains why our
"leaders" are frightened to speak candidly. This was apparent when
Secretary of State Albright appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. She avoided giving a clear answer on U.S. policy about
Jerusalem. The game of words was illustrated when Utah Senator Robert F.
Bennett properly questioned her about the expression "a partnership with
China." When she replied evasively, he pointed out that Warren Christopher
opposed the use of the word. This was really code language about President
Clinton's upcoming visit to China. The moral: Mind your words!
