Latin America
Related: About this forumThe Problem with the Venezuela Sanctions Debate
The Problem with the Venezuela Sanctions Debate
Written by Peter Hayakawa
Friday, 18 July 2014 10:56
As murmurs of U.S. sanctions against Venezuela continue in the aftermath of the protest violence there, researcher Michael McCarthy recently published an article in World Politics Review making some good arguments for why they would be a bad idea. He points out that unilateral sanctions lack regional support, and argues that they would discourage dialogue within Venezuela, would likely be ineffective, and may even harm U.S. interests by scuttling efforts to improve and maintain ties in the region.
McCarthy claims that the push for sanctions represents a symbolic action on the part of U.S. officials to communicate universal support for human rights. This assumption is pervasive in the mainstream debate about Venezuela sanctions; most commentators assume that the moral basis of imposing sanctions is sound and that the only real debate is on whether they will have the desired practical effect. In this context, some of the most obvious questions are missing from the discussionin particular: a) what right does the U.S. have to enact coercive, unilateral economic measures against democratically-elected governments (measures that in this case, happen to be nearly universally opposed in the rest of the region and, as a study by pollster Luis Vicente Leon recently presented at the Washington Office on Latin America shows, are overwhelmingly opposed domestically in Venezuela)? And b) what integrity does the U.S. have when it comes to promoting human rights?
Last year, over a thousand unarmed protestors were killed by the U.S.-backed military government of Egypt after an illegal coup overthrew the countrys first democratically-elected president. Among those killed was a young journalist, Ahmed Assem el-Senousy, who had the misfortune to film his own murder at the hands of a government soldier who had spotted his camera. It was a grim echo of an event from another erain June, 1973, Swedish journalist Leonardo Henrichsen similarly filmed his own death in Chile at the hands of a soldier in an unsuccessful military coup attempt that presaged Augusto Pinochets U.S. supported takeover three months later. The State Department claims that U.S. interests always align with democracy and human rights, but it is hard to miss the glaring gap between U.S. rhetoric on these issues and its actions.
While officials and Congress members throw unfounded accusations at the Venezuelan government and continue to discuss punitive measures, there are no comparable discussions about removing tax-payer funded military aid to U.S. allies with abysmal human rights records let alone imposing sanctions including states like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many others. The U.S. ended its partial freeze of military aid to Egypt this January and has quietly defended Israel during its latest assault on Gaza, even as Palestinian casualties rise at an alarming rate. In this hemisphere, in places like Honduras and Colombia, countries ruled by rightwing allies of the Obama administration, the laws that condition U.S. military and security aid on human rights standards are nearly systematically ignored, just as they are in the Middle East.
More:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/the-problem-with-the-venezuela-sanctions-debate
Socialistlemur
(770 posts)First I'd like to discuss the point made about the lack of USA action to carry out sanctions against nations such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others. USA sanctions are usually the result of lobbying by influential pressure groups. They are also seen as measures the government feels will have an impact. Thus we see two real parameters to understand why they are, or are not imposed. The readership can use their own background and decide why the USA doesn't apply sanctions on Israel and Saudi Arabia.
With regards to the sanctions being used by the USA government, they are not specifically against Venezuela. They are focused on Venezuelan officials the USA government feels are abusing human rights (or provide legal cover for them). The "sanctions" approved by president Obama are simply a denial of USA visas. This is a rather tame move.
The USA senate has also been discussing sanctions to freeze these officials' USA bank accounts. This move seems symbolic because the people involved probably moved their accounts to Europe, Aruba, Brazil, or wherever it would be outside USA ability to get that money.
The faction being pleased by this move is the growing Venezuelan population in the USA, as well as Cuban Americans, who are convinced the Venezuelan government is a Cuban puppet. Therefore any moves by politicians do please these growing constituencies, which have real ability to sway both the presidential as well as senate races.
Regarding the Venezuelan government's behavior, as human rights watch recently stated, they do violate human rights.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...according to many knowledgeable people:
"Debate: Is Human Rights Watch Too Close to U.S. Govt to Criticize Its Foreign Policy?
"Human Rights Watch, one of the worlds largest and most influential human rights organizations, is facing an unusual amount of public criticism. Two Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, and a group of over 100 scholars have written an open letter criticizing what they describe as a revolving door with the U.S. government that impacts HRWs work in certain countries, including Venezuela. The letter urges HRW to bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as staff, advisers or board members...." (my emphasis)
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/11/debate_is_human_rights_watch_too
--------------------------
"The readership can use their own background and decide why the USA doesn't apply sanctions on Israel and Saudi Arabia." --your quote
Huh?
"My background" as a well-informed, active citizen of the United States tells me that the U.S. government imposes "sanctions" on countries with lots of oil whose governments don't kowtow to Exxon Mobile & brethren (Venezuela, Iran, Libya), and on countries that pose a threat to the profits of U.S.-based transglobal corporations (Venezuela, Cuba, Russia), when they are not directly trying to overthrow (or can't overthrow) those governments.
In Venezuela's case, the government's LEGITIMATE right to STOP a violent rightwing insurrection, funded and supported by the U.S. government, was used as an EXCUSE by HRW to accuse Venezuela's government--arguably THE most humanitarian government in Latin America--of "human rights violations." The Venezuelan government has done more for empowering the poor and minorities than any other government. It has done more to support and inspire democracy in Latin America than any other government. It has SET THE PACE for real reform after the U.S.-supported dictatorship period in Latin America. And it furthermore has established "the best election system in the world," according to Jimmy Carter (and my own researches). Are the huge advances in education, poverty reduction, public participation, wages, benefits and other labor rights, equality for minorities and the empowerment of the poor majority EVER praised, or even acknowledged, by the U.S. State Department or its "revolving door" Human Rights Watch flunkie?
No. And while Israel's "right to defend itself" (from the poor ragged masses in their "outdoor prison" in Gaza and their pitiful rockets) is touted by the U.S. State Department and everybody else profiting from the U.S. "military-industrial complex," Venezuela's right to defend itself is labeled a crime.
I am a well-informed, active U.S. citizen who has been PAYING ATTENTION.
Judi Lynn
(160,525 posts)Socialistlemur
(770 posts)I can also mention Amnesty International, and the UN human rights organization as groups which have pointed out similar issues to the ones human rights watch has mentioned. There have also been condemnations by the European Union parliament of Venezuela's human rights abuses.
Judi Lynn
(160,525 posts)The two governments are so different as to represent different planets altogether.
Democrats here are usually bright and conscientious enough to inform themselves. You won't find that many here gullible enough to swallow too much right-wing, oligarchy-serving gibberish.
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)Can't pay their bills, shortages, crime, corruption, incompetence