Obama Administration Faces Diplomatic Isolation in Latin America on Venezuela

[Judi Lynn]

Obama Administration Faces Diplomatic Isolation in Latin America on Venezuela

Oliver Stone and Mark Weisbrot
The Boston Globe, March 22, 2014
La Jornada, March 28, 2014

The Bush administration had a stated policy of trying to isolate Venezuela from its neighbors, and the strategy ended up isolating Washington instead. President Obama, in his first meeting with hemispheric leaders in Trinidad in 2009, promised to turn a new page. But today, his administration finds itself even more isolated that that of his predecessor, and for much the same reasons.

Exhibit A was the lopsided vote at the Organization of American States (OAS) on Venezuela on March 7. Twenty-nine of 32 countries not only rejected Washington’s attempt to get the OAS to intervene in Venezuela, but to add insult to injury, passed a resolution expressing their solidarity with the government of President Nicolás Maduro. It is hard to imagine a more resounding diplomatic defeat in a body where the U.S. government still has quite a disproportionate influence.

The Obama administration seems surrealistically unaware that this is a very different hemisphere than it was 15 years ago. Governments representing the majority of Latin America are now from the left: including Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Venezuela in South America; El Salvador and Nicaragua in Central America. These governments emphatically reject Washington’s depiction of the recent events in Venezuela as a government trying to “repress peaceful protesters.” If we look at the statements of these governments and bodies such as the South American trading bloc Mercosur and the Union of South American Nations, they share Maduro’s view of the protests. They see them as an attempt to overthrow a democratically-elected government. Even President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, who is reluctant to criticize Washington as many of the others do, used the word “destabilization” to describe the protests. And they see that Washington is once again using its muscle to support this effort.

They have seen this movie before. In 2002, the Bush administration “provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the military coup” that briefly overthrew then-President Hugo Chávez, according to the State Department (PDF). After the coup failed, Washington stepped up funding to opposition groups, which has continued to this day.

More:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/obama-administration-faces-diplomatic-isolation-in-latin-america-on-venezuela

[SamKnause]

1. I can not understand

why any country would trust the U.S. government.

They have proven themselves time and time again to be untrustworthy.

Their constant interference causes death and destruction all over the globe.

Their government is corrupt.

Their corporations are corrupt.

Their stock exchange is corrupt.

Their military is used to steal the wealth of nations.

Thanks Judi

[Judi Lynn]

3. And we see we are in the midst of a transition. We're not going to have peace, finally,

regardless of what most of us thought could happen when President Obama promised us better relations with Latin America, or at least implied it, we're going to have an increase of the same evil machinations our State and Defense Departments have been pursuing, most especially under the smelly, dirty leadership of Republican Presidents who have an insatiable appetite for the thought of the blood of Latin America's poor. They see them all as totally dispensable, there for the taking to use any way they wish.

They have always been supported in that view by the oligarchs of the Americas, the pudgy, squishy soft, lame, pointless idle rich who fear and hate the indigenous and the descendants of the slaves brought to the Americas to do the terrifying, painful, desperately destructive, draining, exhaustive WORK the European descended oligarchs find so abhorrent, when the slave owners started loosing the indigenous citizens used as slaves to early, and often violent death.

The transition comes as our own government increases its use of machines to do the jobs formerly held by soldiers
and pilots. We have seen our own right-wing whores in Congress already start reaming the soldiers as they hack away at their paltry salaries, and start throwing out large chunks of their meager "benefits" packages. In the future, the same people can find employment working on drones, and computers engaged in closing down electricity in countries we don't like because of their leftist leaders, just as Enron did in California.

What a woild, isn't it? We're Number One!
[center]

Burp.[/center]
With a mostly mechanized military, we will lose the fear of losing soldiers, since their numbers will be reduced, and we will lose any impulse to moral responsibility as we get farther and farther from the actual consequences of war altogether. Hard to imagine, our country with no sense of moral responsibility or respect for the lives of others.

[mwrguy]

2. Obama inherited a shite situation from bush

He's still fixing it.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. By forcing down the plane of Bolivia's head of state

Maybe if Obama didn't commit acts of war against South American countries, he'd clean up the shite faster?

[Peace Patriot]

5. There have been other Obama administration provocations as well.

These include the Obama administration's refusal to recognize Nicolas Maduro's election--an election that has been recognized throughout Latin America and in the rest of the world--and the obvious use of CIA, USAID and other agencies, and very likely paid local agents, to foment destabilization in Venezuela. This crap--and also the U.S. role in the Honduran coup--seem to be just Bush Junta redux. These are very provocative, hostile actions. Another is NSA spying on the phone calls and emails of the president of Brazil.

I do think, though, that there is a difference between Bush-Corporate policy and Obama-Corporate policy in LatAm. Both are Corporate (serve U.S. moneyed interests), but Bush-Corporate was extremely provocative--might as well have been dictated by the Miami mafia--whereas Obama-Corporate is more disguised. For instance, the peace talks in Cuba to end Colombia's 70 year civil war--a war that has been so lucrative to Pentagon contractors and dirty players of all kinds--is clearly supported by the Obama administration. It would not be occurring--Colombia's president would not be participating--if it had not been okayed in Washington. Who okays things like this in Washington is a good question. Obama himself? I think not. I don't think he has much power. I think the policy is coming from Corporations that will better be able to exploit Colombia's resources without a civil war going on--Corporations like Occidental Petroleum, Drummond Coal and Monsanto. I also think that the CIA has decided that its drug trafficking needs to go legit (perhaps in anticipation of it getting exposed). That is why Colombia's president Santos now advocates complete legalization of all drugs. He simply wouldn't do that without the CIA's okay.

I think we're looking at a long term plan--not necessarily Obama's plan (a plan concerning which he has little say)--that is designed to be subtler, say, than the Honduran coup (which I think was Bush Junta-designed but reached fruition six months into Obama's first term), or than illegally detaining and insulting the president of Bolivia (which I tend to think was a stupid blunder rather than a policy). These planners (some combo of Corporate, CIA and other players) DO understand that the political landscape of Latin America has vastly changed, not only with so many leftist governments but also with a new regional consciousness regarding the protection of LatAm sovereignty and helping each other to further social justice and other goals. This U.S. "plan," of course, aims to undermine that solidarity and to open Latin America again to U.S. Corporate domination, but with an arsenal of subtler tools than the Bush Junta used (compared, say, to the Bush Junta's use of a violent white separatist insurrection in Bolivia to try to topple Evo Morales). The U.S./Colombia "free trade for the rich" agreement is one weapon in this subtler arsenal. NSA spying is another. Controlled news/opinion is a third (um, propaganda, via Corporate news monopolies). And new emphasis on on-going weapons such as USAID funding of political groups.

Latin America is just recovering from decades of horrendous U.S. interference and exploitation, including U.S. support for horrendous dictators. South America is further along in recovery than Central America. But the entire region is in recovery mode. There SHOULDN'T BE the amount of poverty that there is in Latin America. It was induced. It was inflicted. And the U.S. government and its service to U.S. Corporate marauders is one of the chief causes of it. The same for the delay in the development of democratic institutions. This, too, was induced and inflicted. Spiders, snakes and other creepy-crawly things ought to fly out of the mouths of U.S. government officials when they yawp about "democracy" in Latin America. It is such a foul joke. In any case--and especially after all this horror compounded by the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs"--Latin America could be viewed as vulnerable to a long term plan of subtler machinations. And that is how I think that these U.S. "planners" view it. They are lurking in dark alleyways, looking for vulnerabilities. They thought they saw one in the rightwing protests in Venezuela--long in the planning stages at CIA and USAID. They will do the same to other leftist governments if they get the chance. But they don't need a Uribe anymore--that is, an overt, foaming at the mouth fascist and mafia don (former prez of Colombia, under the Bush Junta)--to stir up trouble and try to start wars. They don't want an overt war (not yet anyway). And this, I think, is a significant change of policy, except that it serves the same goal: domination.

[Doctor_J]

6. I think you posted this in the wrong thread

or something. He's ramping UP Smirks AS policies, and the locals don't like it. And apparently neither do a lot of others