Relations Between U.S. Government And Latin America Have Little Hope ...

[struggle4progress]

... For Improvement

<snip> Rather than staunchly backing pragmatic initiatives aimed at constructively relieving the regions’ social deficits—particularly the continued expansion of poverty and concentration of wealth—Powell’s relatively few speeches on Latin America emphasized only trade, market reform and an overly simplified view of the need for democracy expansion. Additionally, rather than genuine concern, Powell’s interest in human rights always seemed to reflect selective indignation towards left-wing regimes, like Venezuela. When it came to the region’s reaction to the Iraq war, Powell saw to it that a number of Latin American nations were dragooned into joining the “Coalition of the Willing.” As for those that continued to dissent, such as the Chilean and Mexican ambassadors to the UN, he pressured their respective government’s to withdraw them from their post. It is little surprise then, that an estimated 85 percent of Latin Americans were opposed to a Bush victory in the 2004 presidential election. <snip>

Aside from attacking Cuba as an “outpost of tyranny” and calling the actions of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’ government “very deeply troubling,” as she did during her Senate confirmation hearing, Rice has shown neither a substantial interest nor a particular competence regarding the region. There will certainly be no softening of the U.S.’ position toward Cuba during Bush’s second term and she likely will use her Cold War-bred intellectual credentials to hunt down any left-wing manifestations in the region. What less ideological eyes would see as a new generation of populist leaders, in Rice’s hawkish vision the current heads of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Uruguay appear as potential nettlesome leftists who could eventually pose a threat to vital U.S. national interests. Be it extending or intensifying the perimeter of the White House’s anti-terrorism war or expanding the U.S. Southern Command’s sphere of operation, under Rice’s jurisdiction, a version of the Cold War could soon be brought to Latin America. This is particularly true if she interprets Bush’s call for freedom and liberty as a battle cry to expel dissident political figures like Castro or Chávez from power.

Relations between the U.S. and Venezuela have remained frosty ever since the Congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) helped finance the conservative opposition’s unsuccessful coup against Chávez in April 2002. Washington will no doubt have to sharpen its eye on Chinese-Venezuelan relations as those two nations recently signed a deal to increase their trade to $3 billion annually. Venezuela, whose 77.8 billion barrels is the largest proven oil reserve in the Western Hemisphere, currently supplies up to 15% of the U.S.’ imported petroleum. As the usual combative rhetoric between the Bush administration and Chávez continues at an even more frenzied pace, and with China threatening the U.S.’ consumption of Venezuelan oil, Washington already has begun exploring its “contingency plans,” as requested by the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar.
<snip>

http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/displayarticle568.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. With the neo-cons in power, I don't expect this to get better.

[bemildred]

2. I have mixed feelings.

It's true the Bushites are belligerent, but they are also
incompetent is such a degree that it borders on farce. On the whole
I think the Bushites have been (unintentionally) very good for
Latin America.

[struggle4progress]

3. In my experience, the guise of incompetence is not infrequently ...

... used by the corrupt to evade responsibility: they really intend to accomplish A; they purport to seek B; they actually accomplish mostly A, some C, and a wee bit of B for good appearance; called on the inconsistency, they then mumble a jumble of crap, and everybody says "Oh, they're incompetent, but that's really not a crime" -- and so they get their corrupt desire, without consequence.

I am interested to hear why you think this crowd has unwittingly aided the Americans below our border.

[bemildred]

5. I did not say it was not a crime.

I did not say they have "unwittingly aided the Americans below our border".
Nor do I think those things, hence I will not refute them.

My point, just using the example of Venezuela, is that Chavez is still
there, and he is at the zenith of his power (so far), and he is busily
pursuing his populist/nationalist agenda. That is the opposite of what
the Bushites set out to do, and it would not have been allowed to happen
in the past, and it can be attributed largely to the Bushites inability
to walk and chew gum at the same time foreign policy-wise. More accurately,
it is due to the Bushites placing all their bets on the Middle East
fandango, leaving them bankrupt elsewhere. While they continue to blather
and make threats, they have not the means to back it up, and everybody
knows it. China is making deals, Russia is making deals, Iran is making
deals, all the former imperial satrapies are saying "Yassuh Boss" and
getting on with their business. It has echoes of the fall of other
empires.

[struggle4progress]

6. I did not say you said it was not a crime.

You did say, "the Bushites have been (unintentionally) very good for
Latin America."

While I have some difficulty understanding exactly why you object to my rephrasing this as a claim that they "unwittingly aided the Americans below our border," I will accept your assertion that my gloss somehow fails to reflect your claim -- but perhaps your objection really stems from some view that the only inhabitants of Americas, who can properly be called American, are the inhabitants of the USA (a view very common in this country and often much resented elsewhere in North and South America)?

This is all extraneous. My real point involves the alleged incompetence of the Administration: I consider them arrogant, corrupt, dishonest, and inhumane. And I think (for reasons I laid out before) they are quite happy to have us call them incompetent. Although I would be very pleased if, in addition, they turned out to be incompetent (because then they would actually be less dangerous), in fact they seem to be accomplishing much of what they have set out to accomplish (although their real aims do not match their rhetoric).

[bemildred]

8. Have a nice day. nt

[coda]

4. Did you ever see Henry Hyde's letter to *?

There is a real prospect that Castro, Chavez, and Lula da Siva could constitute an axis of evil in the Americas which might soon have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles (which Brazil had developed ended in 1990).





Henry J. Hyde
Monday, Oct. 28, 2002
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500


Dear President Bush:


At the present time in Venezuela the leadership of all the pro-democracy elements of the society including the genuinely democratic political parties, the labor unions, business associations, and religious institutions have been gathered for two days in coalition with a group of active duty military officers of flag rank demanding that President Hugo Chavez resign and that new, free and open elections be held. Most of the Venezuelan media is overwhelmingly supportive of this endeavor, even though it has received little attention here.

This broad pro-democratic coalition seeks to rescue Venezuela from the grip of a president who, though democratically elected in December 1998, has since his inauguration done three things that have gravely harmed Venezuelan political democracy and which have threatened the well-being and security of people in neighboring democratic countries as well as to the United States.

The public record is clear that President Chavez has done the following:

1. Violated the constitution of Venezuela in force in 1999, his first year in office, in two fundamental ways: by having the Constituent Assembly, which had the sole legal function of writing a new constitution, usurp the powers of both the elected National Congress and the existing Supreme Court; further Chavez packed the Constituent Assembly with his supporters who, though winning only 42% of the votes, were mysteriously allocated 93% of the seats. The Clinton administration remained silent about this.

2. Forged public alliances with state sponsors of terrorism including Cuba, Iraq, and Iran, and provided since October 2000 subsidized oil to Cuba, enabling the Castro regime to obtain more than US $2 billion which it could use to support terrorism.

3. Supported terrorist organizations attacking nearby fragile democracies including the FARC in Colombia and radical anti-democratic groups seeking to destabilize Bolivia and Ecuador. This included clandestine support for Colonel Gutierrez and pro-Castro radicals who briefly overthrew the democratic government of Ecuador in January 2000. Colonel Gutierrez is now a leading candidate for the presidency in Ecuador and would likely follow in the pro-Castro path of Chavez.

The Clinton administration remained unconscionably silent about the antidemocratic actions of President Chavez. This is the time for the Bush administration to set the factual and historical record straight: the current regime of President Chavez is illegitimate because it is based upon the systematic violation of the Venezuelan constitution in force in 1999. The Bush administration should also declare itself in sympathy with the pro-democratic civil-military coalition in Venezuela which seeks to restore democracy and should do so at once.

It is noteworthy that the pro-democratic civil-military coalition in Venezuela has made the case that under Article 305 of the current Chavez constitution, the military actions of "legitimate disobedience" and the political association and assembly of parties, labor unions, business associations and other groups of Venezuelan civil society calling for the immediate resignation of Chavez is totally constitutional and proper.

In neighboring Brazil, there is a presidential runoff election that will be held on Sunday, October 27, 2002. At present, the leading candidate is Mr. Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, who is a pro-Castro radical who for electoral purposes has posed as a moderate. Recently, many of my colleagues in the Congress wrote you a letter in which they expressed their concerns about the ten-year-long association of Mr. Lula da Silva with Latin American, European, and Middle Eastern terrorist organizations in a forum which he convened and organized in silent partnership with Castro. They also expressed their concern about Mr. Lula da Silva's recent statements indicating an interest in reviving Brazil's nuclear weapons program which from 1965-1994 not only wasted enormous resources that could have helped the poor, but also succeeded in designing a 30-kiloton nuclear bomb which could be quickly tested if the program were revived.

There is a real prospect that Castro, Chavez, and Lula da Siva could constitute an axis of evil in the Americas which might soon have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles (which Brazil had developed ended in 1990). This is the time to support the pro-democratic coalition in Venezuela and to help the people of Brazil understand the truth about Chavez so that they do not make a similar mistake and elect another pro-Castro radical who will neither help the poor, nor help their economy, nor live at peace with democratic neighbors.


Very truly yours,

Henry J. Hyde

[struggle4progress]

7. Henry doesn't want Venezuela to choose its own trading partners