James Rubin: Why Obama Shook Chávez's Hand

[babylonsister]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124061309079054521.html

Why Obama Shook Chávez's Hand
He campaigned on a new approach to diplomacy.

By JAMES P. RUBIN


Beneath the attacks on President Barack Obama's performance at recent meetings abroad lie two fundamental questions about American foreign policy. The first is the extent to which Washington should make changing despised leaders of other countries a primary goal. The second is how to use the power of the presidency.

What the chorus of Mr. Obama's critics is ignoring is that the 2008 election was, in part, a referendum on President Bush's policy of regime change and his approach to diplomacy.

Candidate Barack Obama could not have been clearer. He was going to talk to foreign leaders directly whether the United States agreed with their policies or not. And the purpose of this new diplomacy, Mr. Obama emphasized, was not to change regimes around the world but to advance American interests. His opponent, Sen. John McCain, took the opposite view. He wouldn't be seen in the company of Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. And as far as Iran was concerned, Mr. McCain would demand that Tehran capitulate on a series of issues as the price for a meeting with the president.

Despite the results of November's election, Mr. Obama's critics are judging him on the basis of the old Bush calculus. Whether it is Venezuela or Cuba, they assess Mr. Obama's actions based on whether or not they immediately contribute to the downfall of a regime. If not, then they go off in high dudgeon.

Worse yet, Mr. Obama's critics are using the same logic that contributed to early failures in Iraq. They say the president's politeness to Hugo Chávez, for example, should be judged by the standards of the Cold War. They point to the fact that dissidents in Eastern Europe were heartened when President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." But that truth doesn't always translate to other parts of the world. If Iraq has taught us anything, it is that not all countries respond the same way when a dictator falls. Unfortunately, many heirs to the Reagan tradition haven't learned that policy by analogy is a risky business.

snip//

Mr. Obama's new diplomacy is well-suited to an era of democratic government and instant communication. By refusing to snub Hugo Chávez, Mr. Obama makes it harder for dictators and anti-American activists to demonize the U.S. Of course, national security is not a popularity contest. But since governments around the world are increasingly democratic, they must respond to the attitudes of their people. A popular America has more leverage at the negotiating table on issues from trade to terrorism. While Republican operatives may dismiss the significance of having a president the world admires, the fact is that Mr. Obama's popularity brings tangible benefits we have lost over the last eight years.

If the president's critics continue to judge him by Bush-era standards of diplomacy and regime change, they are going to have a lot to shout about over the next four years. But the majority of Americans who supported Barack Obama will withhold judgment and give the administration the opportunity to implement its initiatives on climate change, nuclear proliferation, Afghanistan and Iran. They may even give the new policies time to work.

[Captain Hilts]

1. At a multi-lateral conference it was the right thing to do.

We still shouldn't invite him for a state visit.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Why not? nt

[Captain Hilts]

7. He needs to earn it through some good behavior. His performance at the UN

was juvenile.

As much as I was horrified by the Bush Admin's approach to Venez. Chavez gave them material to work with.

He's a rogue whose neighbors are often holding at arm's length.

But, yes, I think if there is a specific reason and he's improved his behavior, certainly he should come here. But it's something he has to earn.

[Peace Patriot]

14. Who are WE to dictate "good behavior" to the elected president of another country?

What IS good behavior? Torturing hundreds of prisoners, creating torture dungeonss all over the world, sending death squads into other countries to kidnap and kill, slaughtering a hundred million innocent people to get their oil, spying on everybody, filching billions of dollars from federal coffers in extremely corrupt war profiteer contracts, extreme malfeasance resulting in deaths in New Orleans and the impoverishment of millions of Americans, occupying two countries and paying trillions of dollars to the criminals on Wall Street?

So what has Hugo Chavez done that is "bad behavior"? Calling Bush "the Devil"? You know what Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, said about that? He said that it was "an insult to the Devil." And you know what Lula da Silva, president of Brazil--who meets with Chavez monthly, on economic and political planning--said about Chavez? He said, "They can think up a lot of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!". And that is how much the region's leaders are "holding (Chavez) at arm's length"--that is, not at all. Chavez is close friends and allies with the great majority of the region's leaders--including particularly close friendships and alliances with the two above-mentioned presidents--Correa and da Silva--and also with Nestor and Cristina Fernandez Kirchner, the former and current presidents of Argentina, Tabare Vasquez, president of Uruguay, Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, Daniel Ortega, president of Nicaragua, and Fernando Lugo, president of Paraguay. In fact, Chavez and Lugo held the audience in thrall at Lugo's inauguration celebration, on stage together singing "Todo Cambio" ("Everything Changes"), in what appears to be genuine delight in each other's company. Chavez is even friendly with Alvaro Uribe, Bush's tool in Colombia, whose military tried to assassinate Chavez. He forgave Uribe's every treachery for the sake of peace and economic cooperation (among other things, a new railroad between their countries).

"...he's improved his behavior." Bullshit. Chavez hasn't changed one bit. He remains as outspoken as ever, and as committed to social justice and Latin American sovereignty as ever. What has changed is that all of Latin America is with him, and is backing him up, when he is attacked by our corpo/fascists, and works closely with him on their common goals; all Bushwhack efforts to kill or topple Chavez, Morales and Correa have failed, miserably; all Bushwhack efforts to "divide and conquer" in South America have failed, miserably--they've gone ahead and formed their own Common Market (UNASUR) without the U.S.; and the U.S. is compelled to face this new reality--that they are united and they will not tolerate interference from the U.S. any longer.

Your haughty attitude, that Chavez has to "change his behavior" in order to be acceptable to the U.S., is a Bushwhack attitude, and one that caused utter failure of Bushwhack policies in Latin America. 'Obey, or die!' was their nuttery--and their psychosis. And the new leftist leadership of Latin America (an amazing democratic leftist movement that has swept the region, with leftist presidents elected in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala) gave the finger to the Bushwhacks, this last September, when they supported Evo Morales against the U.S./Bushwhack funded and organized fascist coup attempt in Bolivia.

You know what Nestor Kirchner said, when the Bushwhacks sent down their dictate that South American leaders must "isolate" Chavez? Kirchner replied, "But he's my brother!"

That is the new reality. And that is why President Obama shook President Chavez's hand. He had no other choice. If he had continued to demonize this highly respected leader, or had insulted him in any way, they all would have walked out of the OAS-organized Summit of the Americas. It would have been a major embarrassment and defeat for Obama--and the end of the U.S.-dominated OAS. They have their own institutions now--and they are prepared to go their own way, if they must.

I suggest that you get better informed, and look outside of our controlled corpo/fascist press for what is really happening in the world. Their 24/7 fascist propaganda gets into peoples' heads. We all suffer from it. We need to expunge this brainwashing by seeking out alternative sources of information, and learning to read/view the controlled 'news' with a sharply critical eye.

[Kdillard]

2. I have seriously never seen common courtesy get so over analyzed.

[babylonsister]

5. Very good point, but the rethugs have a problem with common

courtesy, thus the analysis.

[Kdillard]

6. True but it is amusing to see them try to turn this non issue into something.

[Captain Hilts]

9. It's almost as bad as the 'no suit jacket' kerfuffle. Pitiful. nt

[Captain Hilts]

8. It's been 8 years since we've had a prez that uses 'party' manners. GWB couldn't

even sit in a chair like a gentleman. What a relief Obama is.

Pick out the gentleman here:

[Cha]

13. That's because we're talkin'

about the rude repukes here.

[NavyDavy]

4. I don't see the problem

[Captain Hilts]

10. There isn't one. It's good manners. nt

[Peace Patriot]

11. This Wall Street Urinal article reminds me of the debates among male prelates of the Catholic

Church, back in the Middle Ages, about whether or not women have souls: a FALSE QUESTION seriously, meticulously, endlessly debated among self-serving, power-mongering pricks.

What has Hugo Chavez done to harm...

--the people of the United States?

--the people of Venezuela?

--the people of Latin America?

--anyone, anywhere?

The answer is nothing at all. He has invaded no one, tortured no one, killed no one to get their oil, is not occupying two countries with military force, has no torture dungeons around the world, has jailed no one unfairly, and has in fact run an administration that scrupulously follows the Venezuelan Constitution, which, among other things, protects private property. What is his crime? Why is there any debate about our President being civil toward this democratically elected President in South America?

In fact, Venezuela has never had a better government. Ask Venezuelans. Poll after poll shows them to be highly satisfied with their government and the direction of the country (up in the 60% to 70% range). And they keep electing Chavez, and Chavez supporters in the National Assembly, in elections that put our own to shame for their transparency. In Venezuela, they can prove that Chavez was elected. Can we prove that Obama was elected? No, we cannot. I happen to believe he was. Neither I nor anyone else can prove it, due to the near total non-transparency of our privatized, 'TRADE SECRET' code voting machines.

So, what is the Wall Street Urinal's problem with Chavez? He and his government--or, rather, the people of Venezuela--defeated a Bushwhack-supported rightwing military coup. Damn them! How dare they? They also defeated a Bushwhack-funded recall election against Chavez. The bastards! What nerve! They have defeated every effort to destroy their democracy and topple their elected government. That Chavez must be a power-monger. He must be mesmerizing the voters. He must be buying votes with schools, medical care, land reform, grants and loans to small business, wiping out illiteracy, getting Venezuela a better deal from multinational oil corporations, and other progressive policies. What a tyrant! What a dictator! How dare he do what the people who elected him want him to do?!

Cuz that's what it's all about. He is setting a bad example for world leaders. People here and elsewhere might start getting the idea that their interests--the interests of the poor majority--should come first in a government that is truly of, by and for the people, not the interests of fuckwad global corporate predators like Exxon Mobil, Bechtel, Dyncorp, Halliburton, Monsanto, Chiquita International and the World Bank.

The Wall Street Urinal is the toilet of these powermongers. It is where they piss all over you and me. It is where they hold debates about whether or not our President ought to be civil toward the democratically elected President of Venezuela who has done nothing to harm anyone.

The question is not whether Obama should be civil to Chavez. The question is, why isn't our government apologizing to Chavez and to the people who elected him for our fuckwad activities in Venezuela--sending death squads over the border from Colombia to assassinate him, funding the fascist opposition through the USAID and other budgets, colluding with fascist coupsters, trying to start a war between Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela, and doing everything possible to destabilize the country and install the true dictators--the rightwing--who would immediately sell out Venezuela to U.S. corporate domination, and worse. What the Bush-supported coupsters did, in their brief putsch, was to suspend the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights, and to send "brownshirt" thugs to hunt down the members of Chavez's government, while they held Chavez in captivity and threatened his life. Next, they would have been jailing all leftist leaders, and torturing and 'disappearing' people. That is what the Wall Street Urinal wanted to see. And they are very disappointed. So they don't want civility toward this elected leader. He shouldn't be there, in their view. He should be dead or exiled. And Obama should be meeting some little fascist narco-thug like Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, and pretending that he isn't propped up by $6 BILLION in U.S. military aid. The Wall Street Urinal approves of the deaths, by rightwing paramilitary death squad, of thousands of union leaders, human rights advocates and others, in Colombia. That's the way they think the world should be. The rich get richer and the poor get dead. But Chavez is not a player in their dirty rotten game. So they hold FALSE DEBATES with themselves over whether or not our corporate representative should even be civil to him.

Lula da Silva said it all, about Chavez. He said this: "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez--but not on democracy!"

And that is the truth of the matter. So why this debate?

Because he called Bush "the Devil"? Har-har-har. (Ecuador's president commented, at the time, that it was "an insult to the Devil.") He called the Wall Street Urinal's darling idiot "the Devil." Boo-hoo. Such a dirty mouth. Such a tyrant. How dare he? Doesn't he know that 'we' can bomb Venezuela back to the Stone Age and just take their oil? How come he's not showing deference to our Big Bad Military-Industrial Complex? No, more likely it's because Exxon Mobil walked out in a snit, at Chavez's demand that the people of Venezuela get a 60/40 split of the profits from their oil, and went into a court in London and tried to seize $12 billion of Venezuela's assets--and lost. That's who Chavez is tyrannical towards--Exxon Mobil. And that means that the President of the United States has to endure a debate about whether or not shaking Chavez's hand is okay.

Do women have souls? Upshot of the Male Pricks' answer: Maybe--and in that case we have to 'save' them by burning them at the stake when they get uppity.

There is no winning a FALSE DEBATE.

[Cha]

12. Rec'd~ Prez Obama's diplomacy is the

correct thing to do on so many levels.

The party of "whine and no" don't have anything but imagined Booga Bears to attempt scare tactics on the Americian People.

And, intelligent people have to write articles like this to counteract the brainwashing.