U.S. needs to end 'imperial attitude,' Bolivian says

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Los Angeles Times

U.S. needs to end 'imperial attitude,' Bolivian says
David Mercado / Reuters

"The U.S. has a very urgent task ahead of it, which is to recover its moral values so that we can believe in it again as leader of the free world," says former Bolivian President Carlos Mesa.
Former Bolivian President Carlos Mesa has some advice for Obama, starting with the closing of Guantanamo and lifting of the embargo on Cuba.

By Chris Kraul
February 4, 2009

Reporting from La Paz, Bolivia -- To mend U.S.-Latin American relations, President Obama must first recover the moral authority the U.S. has lost with its operation of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, says former Bolivian President Carlos Mesa.

Mesa has a unique perspective on U.S.-Latin American relations as a former news reporter, historian, U.S. cinephile and Bolivia's president from 2003 to 2005. He said he expects to run for the presidency again later this year against incumbent Evo Morales.

~snip~
But the most dramatic break from U.S. moral logic occurred with President George W. Bush, who after Sept. 11 totally lost his way in terms of U.S. moral values. Based on my conversations in Latin America, Guantanamo seems to resonate more deeply here than even among U.S. citizens.

It was a dramatic and possibly unique point in history -- the U.S. renouncing the application of the rule of law. That's the essence of what the U.S. has defended as the great model in its competition with communism and now terrorism. That's what I demand of Obama -- that he recovers this criterion. You can't give classes on morals if you're not applying them in your own territory.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mesa-qa4-2009feb04,0,7241256.story?track=rss

[acmavm]

1. Boy Howdy, I would agree with that.

[Peace Patriot]

2. The LAT has become a bankrupt shit-rag like the NYT and all the rest.

And Chris Kraul is even worse than the NYT's Simon Romero, for bankrupt journalism in service to the super-rich, in their obscenely greedy designs on South America's resources.

Kraul wrote this disgusting, racist piece of crap yesterday--just after the Bolivian peoples' magnificent, peaceful, democratic victory of passing their new Constitution with 61% of the vote:

"Mob rule taints Bolivia indigenous law"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bolivia-justice1-2009feb01,0,1847850.story

Even the Miami Herald hasn't topped the crude, boorish, racism and fascism of this article. The distortion of reality is comparable to the Bushwhacks in the US embassy in Caracas, during the Bushwhack-instigated coup attempt against Chavez in 2002: the entertainment for the evening was Chavez portrayed as a gorilla.

Filthy, racist bankrupt ideas--from filthy, racist, money-drunk, bankrupt oligarchs.

So-o-o-o, Mr. Kraul and his wretched organization are not to be trusted in bringing us the latest "great white hope" for South America--former Bolivian President Carlos Mesa, who was VP to the murderous regime of President Gonzalo Sanchez de la Lozada. He was a two-faced SOB then, and he is very likely being a two-faced SOB now, in descrying the easy target of Guantanamo Bay and lecturing the U.S.

The thrust of Mesa's thought in the interview part of this article is this: How can Obama restore U.S. corporate domination and exploitation in Latin America, with the U.S. in such disrepute? I'll underline and boldface his devious, two-faced message:

KRAUL: "If you were President Obama, what would you do to improve U.S. relations with Latin America?"

MESA: "In terms of policy, the United States has to end its imperial attitude of giving instructions, imposing models and instead arrive at consensus respectfully with its interlocutors no matter how small they might be. The U.S. has a very urgent task ahead of it, which is to recover its moral values so that we can believe in it again as leader of the free world."

KRAUL: "How can it do that?"

MESA: "Closing the Guantanamo detention facility is a good start. I would also lift the embargo on Cuba and reform the Organization of American States in which Cuba is invited to return and in which the U.S. lowers its influence. Brazil and Mexico are both institutionally strong and should play stronger leadership roles.

If Obama has relations with China, why not with Cuba? What's the difference in terms of human rights violations and dictatorship? China is a pure dictatorship, but it happens to be the largest country on Earth and a trade partner, whereas Cuba is a just a few million people. So the moral values are being applied with a double standard.

I would take those risks because lifting the Cuba embargo and readmitting it to the OAS would be applauded across Latin America. Furthermore, it would eliminate Cuba's excuse that it suffers by being isolated by the U.S. exclusionary policy. Cuba would be exposed and wouldn't last a moment, because without the U.S. as an enemy, it can't exist."

(emphasis added)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mesa-qa4-2009feb04,0,7241256.story?track=rss

--

Mesa's goal is to advise Obama on how the U.S. can become dominant again--reassert control over Latin America, its peoples, governments and resources. He wants to admit Cuba to the OAS to humiliate and destroy the Cuban revolution. And, the article naturally doesn't explain this, but South American leaders, as a whole, have basically abandoned the OAS, as an institution that can express and support Latin American sovereignty and democracy and economic interests--because the U.S. is a member of it, and acts against their interest--and have formed their own organization, UNASUR, the new South American 'common market,' which, in its first important action, this last September, strongly backed Evo Morales' government in Bolivia, in the face of a U.S. (Bushwhack)-supported violent fascist coup. UNASUR could act unanimously and strongly because the U.S. is not a member of UNASUR.

His plan is to re-invigorate the OAS--coyly and two-facedly throwing in "with lesser U.S. influence"--and to promote Mexico and Brazil against the influence of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua--the strong leftists. Currently, Brazil is aligned with the strong leftists. (Note: Cuba is a member of UNASUR. It has long been blockaded by the U.S. from membership in the OAS. The OAS has become irrelevant to the situation.) What Mesa is laying out here is a U.S. "divide and conquer" strategy, nothing less--out of the mouth of a Bolivian who intends to run against Evo Morales in the next election.

The latest "great white hope" for South America is not an exaggerated way to describe what the L.A. Times is doing by touting this discredited, massacre-connected, corporate-connected, anti-Morales, rightwing politician, who was forced out of office--forced to resign--by the people of Bolivia, for his ineptitude, corruption and hypocrisy.

[Still Sensible]

3. Yeah, often the same people that basically said it was okay

when the Bushies were running things are jumping on this now. The truth is, our country and leaders should not be imperial in occupying countries or expanding the empire, but America--as noted by President Obama in his inaugural address--does need to lead.

[ronnie624]

4. And if other nations reject the leadership of the United States? n/t

[Still Sensible]

5. Fact of life, some will some won't, it has always been so. n/t

[ronnie624]

6. You said the U.S. needs to lead.

What actions do you believe the U.S. government should take if other nations reject the leadership of the United States?

[Still Sensible]

7. There's no action to be taken

The US should be a good citizen of the world of nations and, when called upon, be willing to take lead on global issues. Some of the parties in the middle east for instance have complained about how disengaged the US has become in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and are asking the new administration to reengage. For many foreign governments and their people, just not being the Bush administration is already a major plus.

If other nations simply reject US leadership on one issue or another, and they will,no big deal. If, on the other hand, other nations or their surrogates take action against the US, that's a whole different can of worms.