Glenn Greenwald: President Obama sanctions Venezuela, embraces Saudi Arabia.

[Karmadillo]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/11/maybe-obamas-sanctions-venezuela-really-deep-concern-human-rights-abuses/

MAYBE OBAMA’S SANCTIONS ON VENEZUELA ARE NOT REALLY ABOUT HIS “DEEP CONCERN” OVER SUPPRESSION OF POLITICAL RIGHTS
BY GLENN GREENWALD

The White House on Monday announced the imposition of new sanctions on various Venezuelan officials, pronouncing itself “deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government’s efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents”: deeply concerned. President Obama also, reportedly with a straight face, officially declared that Venezuela poses “an extraordinary threat to the national security” of the U.S. — a declaration necessary to legally justify the sanctions.

Today, one of the Obama administration’s closest allies on the planet, Saudi Arabia, sentenced one of that country’s few independent human rights activists, Mohammed al-Bajad, to 10 years in prison on “terrorism” charges. That is completely consistent with that regime’s systematic and extreme repression, which includes gruesome state beheadings at a record-setting rate, floggings and long prison terms for anti-regime bloggers, executions of those with minority religions views, and exploitation of terror laws to imprison even the mildest regime critics.

Absolutely nobody expectts <sic> the “deeply concerned” President Obama to impose sanctions on the Saudis – nor on any of the other loyal U.S. allies from Egypt to the UAE whose repression is far worse than Venezuela’s. Perhaps those who actually believe U.S. proclamations about imposing sanctions on Venezuela in objection to suppression of political opposition might spend some time thinking about what accounts for that disparity.

That nothing is more insincere than purported U.S. concerns over political repression is too self-evident to debate. Supporting the most repressive regimes on the planet in order to suppress and control their populations is and long has been a staple of U.S. (and British) foreign policy. “Human rights” is the weapon invoked by the U.S. Government and its loyal media to cynically demonize regimes that refuse to follow U.S. dictates, while far worse tyranny is steadfastly overlooked, or expressly cheered, when undertaken by compliant regimes, such as those in Riyadh and Cairo (see this USA Today article, one of many, recently hailing the Saudis as one of the “moderate” countries in the region). This is exactly the tactic that leads neocons to feign concern for Afghan women or the plight of Iranian gays when doing so helps to gin up war-rage against those regimes, while they snuggle up to far worse but far more compliant regimes.

<edit>

In essence, Venezuela is one of the very few countries with significant oil reserves which does not submit to U.S. dictates, and this simply cannot be permitted (such countries are always at the top of the U.S. government and media list of Countries To Be Demonized). Beyond that, the popularity of Chavez and the relative improvement of Venezuela’s poor under his redistributionist policies petrifies neoliberal institutions for its ability to serve as an example; just as the Cuban economy was choked by decades of U.S. sanctions and then held up by the U.S. as a failure of Communism, subverting the Venezuelan economy is crucial to destroying this success.

more...

[geek tragedy]

1. Of course, Glenn Greenwald in return cares only about criticizing the US and UK and Israel and

does not care about human rights in places like Russia and Venezuela.

So, pretty damn obvious both President Obama and Greenwald have agendas, not principles, driving their 'concern' for restrictions on civil liberty.


Supporting tyrannies has been a long tradition of every major state, when it suits that state's interest.

Just like turning a blind eye to the abuses of anti-American regimes and terrorists like Anwar Al Awlaki and seditious creeps like Tom Cotton is something that suits Greenwald's agenda.

[elias49]

5. Well, not true if you read the OP.

"Absolutely nobody expectts <sic> the “deeply concerned” President Obama to impose sanctions on the Saudis – nor on any of the other loyal U.S. allies from Egypt to the UAE whose repression is far worse than Venezuela’s."

Isn't he admitting repression exists in Venezuela? "....whose repression is far worse than Venezuela..."
Do you think he's wrong to say that repression is worse in Saudi, or the UAE? Or most other countries in the Middle East?

And you lament that he has '. turned a blind eye to the abuses of anti-American regimes and terrorists...' and etc etc.
Well, how many articles should he write in a day? Can he address every evil world-wide by the weekend? Sanctions against Venezuela is a current news story. The President just said Venezuela is a 'national security threat'. That's worth discussing.

[geek tragedy]

8. Repression exists anywhere. One could say that repression is worse in Saudi Arabia than

it is in the United States.

But what you won't catch Greenwald saying is that repression in Syria, or Venezuela, or Russia, is worse than it is in the US or UK.

Greenwald has on multiple occasions defended Russian state media against charges of bias, but has never criticized repression of the press in Russia.

Much of this article is pretty much copied and pasted from the standard anti-American talking points that Moscow has been circulating for decades.

The US doesn't criticize hostile governments like VZ and North Korea, no it criticizes "those that defy and refuse to submit."

You see, when Maduro accused Joe Biden of plotting a coup, that wasn't hostile rhetoric, that was "refusing to submit."

[elias49]

10. I don't think equating NKorea and Venezuela is even close to fair!

"The US doesn't criticize hostile governments like VZ and North Korea..."

But that aside, I haven't personally read anything by Greenwald that expressed any fondness for Russia, North Korea, Syria or others we could talk about. At the worst he criticizes the US for its friendship or enmity with other nation states as the case might dictate.
It's easy to criticize Russia.
Harder to criticize one's own country.
I say "Bravo, Greenwald"

[geek tragedy]

15. Greenwald argued that Russia's arresting of Pussy Riot was because they

were obscene, not because they criticized Putin.

Nikitin notes what most western media accounts have ignored about Pussy Riot: its lead singer's "participation, naked and heavily pregnant, in a public orgy at a Moscow museum in 2008", sponsored by a radical art group that "had previously set fire to a police car and drew obscene images on a St Petersburg drawbridge". Those acts, he accurately observes, "would get you arrested just about anywhere, not just in authoritarian Russia".

He's pretty much a full-throated apologist for the regime in Moscow, which makes his criticisms of the US more than a bit suspect.

[A Simple Game]

36. Personally I think he chose Venezuela over Saudi Arabia as a "national security threat"

because of all the Venezuelans that attacked us on 9/11. All of that oil Venezuela "dumped" in New England a few winters ago probably didn't help either. But it's really just a hunch.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Why is it tough to believe the US gives a shit about human rights?

History.

[Maedhros]

3. Greenwald states an obvious truth.

Yet, in our current political climate, this is needed.

[elias49]

4. A lot of sad truth in this article.

Central and South America have been American game pieces as long as I've been alive.
And as a taxpaying American, I feel complicit and I hate it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. He brings up great points, as he almost always does. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. When he's right, he's right. US concern for human rights is inconsistent, to put it nicely.

[geek tragedy]

9. It's kind of low-hanging fruit. Can you name a country that's even-handed in its criticisms

of other countries' human rights records?

Also, the fact that Greenwald himself demonstrates a similar but opposing bias in his human rights writings makes him a hypocrite.

Or, as he would say, Glenn Greenwald only criticizes the governments that refuse to submit to him.

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. It's a shame that human rights is just a tool in the arsenal of US diplomacy.

To be wielded against our foes and not our friends. It effectively devalues the whole notion. That's cynical. My first trip to Washington, DC, was a college student interested in Jimmy Carter's emphasis on human rights. I've had a long time to get schooled in cynicism and hypocrisy since then.

I can't speak for other countries.

I don't care much about the Greenwald wars.

[geek tragedy]

23. It's certainly used partially as a tool.

I wouldn't say completely.

Statecraft is generally a cynical exercise. Carter was a hypocrite as well.

[bvar22]

11. One of the unintended consequences of the Bush/Iraq obsession....

...is that our government took their eye off the ball in South America long enough for many countries to elect representative governments that work for the people instead of the enrichment of Global Corporations and their absentee investors.

Now, it appears that the Eye of Sauron is once again turning toward Venezuela and Latin America.

[G_j]

13. yep nt

[Doctor_J]

12. US -heart- Saudi Arabia

And of course those 7 Venezuelans pose a threat to our entire way of life

[bigtree]

14. on point

U.S. opposition to Venezuela has always been about the oil and protecting the Saudi monopoly on the market.

Here's a 2006 headline about an appearance by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte before the Senate Intelligence committee Feb.2 that disappeared from the article it was linked to:

"National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told Congress on Thursday that Iran probably does not yet have nuclear weapons, nor has it obtained the material central to producing them. Still, Negroponte called Iran's program a matter of "highest concern."

What Negroponte said in the hearing was that Iran has a stockpile of ballistic missiles, to, as he admitted, repel foreign assaults on their country. A further 'threat' from Iran that he expressed was the government's hostility to the United States and its interests.

So, what the Bush administration presented to the nation as justification for their proposed subversion of the elected government in Iran, and the raising of the possibility of retaliatory action against what they asserted was Iran's 'ambition' to develop nuclear weapons, was a weak, imperialistic argument based on Bush's imagined right to dictate our agenda to countries in that region at the point of our nation's military force.

The most revealing argument that the Bush administration made against Iran was their reference to Iran's oil and the influence Iran gains by trading with regional actors like Russia and Pakistan. Negroponte said in the Feb.2, 2006 hearing that a combination of rising demand for energy and instability in oil-producing regions “is increasing the geopolitical leverage of key producing states”.

"Record oil revenues and diversification of its trading partners are further strengthening the Tehran government." Negroponte warned the senate committee.

Oil was also on Negroponte's mind as he blasted Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for his increasing relationship with Iran. Chavez ``is seeking closer economic, military and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea,'' he said. Negroponte worried aloud in his statement that Chavez is looking to dump the U.S. as an oil trading partner in favor of customers like Russia and China. Although the U.S. was then getting about 60% of Venezuela's oil exports, Venezuela had reportedly planned to double their exports to China by the end of the year.

Am I the only one who thinks it was out of line for the Director of National Intelligence to be musing about oil exports and alternative fuels? Not so unusual if you already consider that all of the Bush's military adventures into the Middle East were driven by their obsession for oil as well as for power.

Secretary of Torture, Don Rumsfeld, likened Hugo Chavez to Hitler. "I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld told the National Press Club. "He's a person who was elected legally _ just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally _ and then consolidated power and now . . .

Fast forward 14 or so years later, and the US government is still working to demonize Venezuela and they, in turn, are still moving closer to China...

from Bloomberg:

Finance Minister Rodolfo Marco Torres to Beijing. Torres spent the first week of December in China, during which he tweeted photos of his meetings with Chinese officials and bankers.

Continuamos trabajo en Beijing. Reunidos con el Sr Zhou Xiaochuan, Gobernador del Banco Popular de China y directores [link:http://t.co/V8yolUrjsA|pic.twitter.com/V8yolUrjsA
]
— Rodolfo Marco Torres (@RMarcoTorres) December 4, 2014

The late Hugo Chávez cozied up to China as part of his drive to curb U.S. influence in the Americas. Maduro, like his predecessor, has relied on Beijing to underwrite Venezuela’s flagging socialist revolution and finance the country’s gaping fiscal deficits (this year’s shortfall could amount to 15 percent of gross domestic product). Without loans from the Chinese, Maduro’s government might not have been able to weather a deep economic crisis. Under his watch, Venezuelans have had to put up with massive shortages of basic goods, the world’s highest inflation rate, and a steep currency devaluation.

Beijing has so far been happy to oblige Maduro. Since 2007, China has advanced Venezuela about $46 billion in loans repayable in oil, of which about $20 billion has been repaid. The latest loan agreement was in July, when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited the country and pledged $5.69 billion in credits...

Beijing’s largesse has come at a price. Chinese goods are flooding the Venezuelan market, as many Chinese credits are tied to the import of products and services. The low-priced imports are squeezing local companies.

Problem for Venezuela is that most of the money from oil trade with China is going to pay off their debt to the Communist giant, keeping Venezuela well within the US orbit.

from Quartz:

Every day, about 500,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil are exported to China, half of which go to pay off the country’s loans from Beijing. As of last month, outstanding debt totaled $17 billion, according to Venezuela’s vice president for the economy. The Maduro administration plans to pay off the additional loans by producing and exporting more oil—an additional 100,000 barrels (paywall) a day. Venezuela sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

So far, Sino-Venezuelan ties seem as stable as when Hugo Chávez, an ally of Beijing’s, was still leading the country. Aside from an embarrassing rendition of Venezuela’s national anthem, Xi’s state visit to Caracas went on without a hitch. The two state leaders signed about 38 economic agreements, deals to explore mining reserves, expand public transport, and launch another Venezuelan satellite. But with an increasing amount of Venezuelan oil going to repay its debts to China, the relationship may not stay unstrained for long.

It serves the US govt's interests to have Venezuela's economy collapse completely in the wake and midst of falling oil prices and China's unwillingness to loan them any more money; while the Saudis remain financially comfortable enough to ride out the price drop with their reserve of revenue. What does concern the US, though, is the inevitable move by Venezuelan leaders toward autocracy and more privatization of industry, including the oil interests in the country. That's what I believe the Obama administration is hedging against.

one more view from the NYT:

A HISTORIC change of roles is at the heart of the clamor and turmoil over the collapse of oil prices, which have plummeted by 50 percent since September. For decades, Saudi Arabia, backed by the Persian Gulf emirates, was described as the “swing producer.” With its immense production capacity, it could raise or lower its output to help the global market adjust to shortages or surpluses.

But on Nov. 27, at the OPEC meeting in Vienna, Saudi Arabia effectively resigned from that role and OPEC handed over all responsibility for oil prices to the market, which the Saudi oil minister, Ali Al-Naimi, predicted would “stabilize itself eventually.” OPEC’s decision was hardly unanimous. Venezuela and Iran, their economies in deep trouble, lobbied hard for production cutbacks, to no avail. Afterward, Iran accused Saudi Arabia of waging an “oil war” and being part of a “plot” against it.

By leaving oil prices to the market, Saudi Arabia and the emirates also passed the responsibility as de facto swing producer to a country that hardly expected it — the United States. This approach is expected to continue with the accession of the new Saudi king, Salman, following the death on Friday of King Abdullah. And it means that changes in American production will now, along with that of Persian Gulf producers, also have a major influence on global oil prices...

...several things postponed a price collapse. One was the growing consumption in the developing world, led by China. Another was turmoil in Libya, South Sudan and other countries that reduced supply. Over a million barrels per day were also taken off the market by sanctions imposed on Iran. Without that big surge of shale oil from the United States, it is highly likely that those sanctions would have failed. Prices would have spiked, countries seeking cheaper oil would have broken ranks — and Iran might not be at the nuclear negotiating table today...

... most immediately, they were looking at two neighbors. They did not want to give up markets to Iraq, a country they see as an Iranian satellite, and whose output is increasing. And they certainly did not want to make way for Iran, which they thought might come to a nuclear deal with the United States and its allies, bringing that missing Iranian oil back into the market.

... Venezuela is highly vulnerable to turmoil and even financial collapse. Russia is coping not only with lower prices for oil, which provides over 40 percent of government revenues, but with Ukraine-related sanctions, and seems headed into a deep recession.

[geek tragedy]

16. interesting post, but I don't see how Venezuela's debt bondage to China puts it more within

the orbit of the US. That seems paradoxical--if they're in debt to China, they're really more in the Chinese orbit, no?

I don't think a collapse in VZ's economy is good for anyone--US corporations would stand to lose a ton of money if VZ defaults on its debt. China is not their only creditor.

There's some debate as to whether the Saudis are targeting the US shale industry as opposed to helping us tank VZ and RU. Financially crippling the shale industry (and Bakken fields in North Dakota especially) would mean less competition down the road.

[bigtree]

18. read

...China's cut them off and no more actual oil revenue is to be had from them; only debt repayment. They're only choice is to move back toward the US market. The US would rather see them in this bind than secure in their economic relationship with China; same with the Saudis.

Anyone who doesn't believe the US isn't interested in crippling the governments of Venezuela and Russia aren't paying attention. Thinking that we give a damn about what happens to their population (as a matter of US foreign policy) is naive and disregarding of what their government actually does with the revenues.

[geek tragedy]

22. Russia I'll grant you because they're seen as a hostile and largely malignant state

trying to project influence in a way that can mean only bad things.

VZ still seems like a stretch.

Who said anything about us caring about the population of Venezuela? I did say that if VZ's economy tanks, that will have rippling effects that hurts just about everyone, including the biggest transnational corporations.

The US has no rational reason for wanting to cripple VZ. They're not a threat, they're not in a position to disrupt world oil supplies and won't be for quite some time, there's really no upside to crippling them. the oil's going to flow either way.

We import only about 2.6% of our national petroleum consumption from VZ.

Whereas Russia is a still a considerable threat in certain spheres, VZ is an annoyance at most.

[bigtree]

24. cripple their economy, cripple their government

...that's been the US aim for decades; a standard tactic with regimes which don't completely serve our interests or cozy up to Russia and China; or threaten the Saudi oil monopoly in any way.

Of course we can choose to believe that the US cares more about human rights there than they do about the medieval, barbaric, dictatorial practices of the Saudis.

[geek tragedy]

26. of course the US looks the other way on the Saudis because they play ball.

I do not see historical evidence for the claim that the US tries to cripple the economy of every country that doesn't bow in servitude to Washington. I don't even see much evidence for it in the case of Venezuela. We don't like their government, but the current 'sanctions' are pretty much symbolic and only a minor escalation from sending home their deputy assistant attaché from the consulate.

We certainly weren't doing anything to try to hurt Russia until they started invading their neighbors. Russia's economy was actually doing okay up until the Ukraine fiasco.

The reason VZ and RU are really hurting right now is that they run gas station economies where the operative assumption is that money is something that comes out of the ground rather than something people work for or build stuff for. If Russia and Venezuela actually made stuff people wanted, they'd be doing a lot better.

They've been monoline petrostates under both leftwing and rightwing governments. Until they diversify their economies, they're going to be very vulnerable to the whims of a single commodity's market price.

[RufusTFirefly]

34. What about our "friend" Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan?

He's the friendly guy who allegedly has his political opponents boiled to death.

The international community has repeatedly criticized the Karimov administration's record on human rights and press freedom. In particular, Craig Murray, the British Ambassador from 2002 to 2004, described widespread torture, kidnapping, murder, rape by the police, financial corruption, religious persecution, censorship, and other human rights abuses. This included the case of Karimov's security forces executing prisoners Muzafar Avazov and Khuzniddin Alimov by boiling them alive in 2002.[26] Murray became noted within the British government for memos disagreeing with official UK & US policy, which was at the time to back up Karimov as part of the global war on terror. Uzbekistan was used for extraordinary rendition and for the air base in Karshi-Khanabad. Murray wrote a memoir about his experiences; Murder in Samarkand, retitled Dirty Diplomacy in the United States.

Source: Wikipedia

New York Times: America's Uzbeckistan Problem.

[woo me with science]

17. To the Greatest Page.

This is important.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. But...but...Saudi Arabia isn't corrupt or oppressive...is it?

[kelliekat44]

21. I confess, I don't get the Venezuela sanction either or designating them as a threat.

I don't understand Obama making this decision. I just don't.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. It's a Domino Theory kinda thing. Venezuela is a threat to our domination of the hemisphere

The U.S. doesn't like the precedent it sets. Much like the Soviets didn't like the precedent that Czechoslovakia set back in 1968.
In fact, I fear the comparison is all too apt.



We need to install a puppet back in Venezuela before South America spins out of our control. Chavez, like Castro, proved to be a formidable opponent. Maduro not so much. Our global business interests are hoping to capitalize on this perceived weakness.

Meanwhile, now that Venezuela is under siege by U.S. efforts to foment a coup, Maduro will behave more and more like the despot we've accused him of being. It sets the stage for a sad, self-fulfilling prophecy.

[elias49]

25. Kick

[SidDithers]

28. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[RufusTFirefly]

29. Good one, Sid!

Tell me: Are your cogent, insightful responses generated by some sort of script? Or do you actually type them out manually?
If the latter, you're probably needlessly wasting a lot of time.

[stupidicus]

33. indeed, the genius required for the "LOL" defense

is immeasurable/off the scale

[stupidicus]

30. it's indefensibly stupid and/or hypocritical

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/3/obama-absurdly-declares-venezuela-a-national-security-threat.html as far as I am concerned.

[salib]

31. Remember when Jommy Carter made human rights an issue?

Before that, it was purely "national interests". Also, he called them more honestly than anyone since.

Oh well, good idea and intentions twisted by consummate politicians and self-serving egotists. Subsequently.

[SoapBox]

32. Oh kiss my ass Greenwad.

...you've lost your cred.

[father founding]

35. at long last

Obama is showing his true color.

[msanthrope]

37. You sound concerned. nt