Latin America
Related: About this forumWhy the US Has No Right to Lecture Latin America
July 30, 2013
A Breathtaking Hypocrisy
Why the US Has No Right to Lecture Latin America
by DANIEL WICKHAM
Venezuela has announced that it is ending efforts to improve ties with the United States after the Obama administrations nominee for the role of ambassador to the United Nations labelled the country repressive. Samantha Power, who is widely known for her strong stance on human rights, vowed to contest the crackdown on civil society being carried out in countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia and Venezuela.
For obvious reasons, Power is selective in who she choses to criticise. The likes of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates, all of whom have presided over major crackdowns on dissent in recent years, warrant no mention, which is not surprising given the US governments staunch support for the regimes in question. Regarding Saudi Arabia, Washingtons attitude towards democracy is best expressed by William M. Daley, Obamas chief of staff during the Arab uprisings, who said that the possibility of anything (like the revolution in Egypt) happening in Saudi Arabia was one that couldnt become a reality. Daley explained that for the global economy, this couldnt happen, referring of course to the importance of Saudi oil, which was described by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2003 as the primary reason for US support for the monarchy. An unsurprising claim, in light of the US State Departments description in 1945 of the Gulfs oil reserves as a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.
Returning to Latin America, the hypocrisy is again breathtaking. Condemning Venezuela as repressive, Power neglects to mention that the most dramatic setback, according to Americas Watch, for human rights in Venezuela came in 2002 when a coup detat, allegedly supported tacitly by the United States, removed Chavez from office and dissolved the countrys democratic institutions. It is also worth noting that the US supported enthusiastically the Caldera and Perez administrations which preceded Chavezs Bolivarian Revolution, both of which were vastly more repressive than the current revolutionary government.
Also strikingly absent from Powers remarks was any mention of Colombia, the United States closest ally in the region, which according to Americas Watch, presents the worst human rights and humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere. This years annual report claims that over the past decade, the Colombian army committed an alarming number of extrajudicial killings of civilians, carried out in a systematic fashion, during which time the army was the highest recipient of US military aid in Latin America. Most of the killings occurred under the presidency of Alvaro Uribe, whom President Bush described in 2006 as a personal friend and a strong believer in democracy and human rights. Under Obama, Colombia has continued to receive more military aid than any other country in the hemisphere, with Mexico, whose well-documented record of extrajudicial killings, disappearances and widespread torture is not much better, coming second.
This practice- of giving military aid to the Hemispheres worst human rights abusers- runs throughout history. A 1979 study into Amnesty Internationals reports on torture revealed that 25 of the worlds 36 most prolific torturers between 1945 and 1975 received military aid and training from the United States, with Latin American regimes accounting for more than 80% of the most urgent appeals for victims of torture at the time.
More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/30/why-the-us-has-no-right-to-lecture-latin-america/
think
(11,641 posts)msongs
(67,407 posts)railsback
(1,881 posts)is that they're still living in the Stone Ages, and when there's lots of poor people, they'll do whatever to make ends meet, and that includes cultivating crops of illegal 'agriculture'. And then there's gangs/cartels/militias, holding entire regions hostage. It would be interesting to see the domino effect if the U.S. legalized illegal drugs. Latin American would undoubtably follow suit, because they NEED lots of trade to bring in revenue. Running a socialistic state requires a lot of funds. More people would work, murder rates would drop, U.S. aid would decrease dramatically. Since that's not going to happen anytime soon, Latin America is desperately toying around with various global trade agreements, even those who've committed to Mercosur (regional trade), as they've seen the member states of the Pacific Alliance more than triple their revenues.
IMO, Maduro is making a huge mistake. You can't rely on China to pick up your trade slack, especially when their economy is coming back down to Earth. They don't offer the same lucrative deals, either. Venezuela has also a depleted infrastructure, unable to refine over half of their oil output, which they send to us. Maduro is already on shaky ground, his approval rating is sinking as revenue keeps drying up, and then there's this Snowden bullshit, who, if he ever manages to make his way to Venezuela, would put an end to Maduro's administration rather quickly. The oligarchs there have a lot of money, ready to pounce, and they will.
Look, I'm all for socialist states making the lives of their citizens better, but that requires a ton of cash. Sure, the U.S. has meddled in Latin America affairs for decades, but its time to get over it and face reality. You can trade AND keep your sovereignty. So what if Power is nominated. Work around it. Grow up. If there's any more decreases in revenue coming into Venezuela, the Venezuelans themselves will be overthrowing Maduro, and we all saw what happened when the oligarchs ran Venezuela the last time. This dude needs to get his shit together, and together really FAST.
Socialistlemur
(770 posts)Maduro spends the time traveling abroad, and has shown he's unable to lead anything. Evidently the Castro regime directs a lot from Cuba but they themselves are ham handed. The Cubans are trying to become capitalists fascist style, but they have internal conflicts and after 50 years of Marxist mumbo jumbo they don't know how to balance a check book. So it's uphill even for smarter Cubans to grasp the mess Chavez made and the bigger mess Maduro is making.
a la izquierda
(11,795 posts)I'm sure the mothers whose sons and daughters disappeared or worse can wake up tomorrow and say, "yeah, I'm over it."
Read Empire's Workshop and Open Veins of Latin America. I'm not a Venezuelan expert, but I AM an expert in Mexico and Central America. Your post grates my nerves.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)Certainly one of the most offensive posts I've ever read on DU.
Judi Lynn
(160,542 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,542 posts)Consortium News / By Robert Parry
The GOP's CIA Playbook: Destabilize Country to Sweep Back Into Power
Modern Republicans have a simple approach to politics when they are not in the White House: Make America as ungovernable as possible by using almost any means available.
June 9, 2011 |
Modern Republicans have a simple approach to politics when they are not in the White House: Make America as ungovernable as possible by using almost any means available, from challenging the legitimacy of opponents to spreading lies and disinformation to sabotaging the economy.
Over the past four decades or so, the Republicans have simply not played by the old give-and-take rules of politics. Indeed, if one were to step back and assess this Republican approach, what you would see is something akin to how the CIA has destabilized target countries, especially those that seek to organize themselves in defiance of capitalist orthodoxy.
To stop this spread of socialism, nearly anything goes. Take, for example, Chile in the early 1970s when socialist President Salvador Allende won an election and took steps aimed at improving the conditions of the countrys poor. Under the direction of President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the CIA was dispatched to engage in psychological warfare against Allendes government and to make the Chilean economy scream.
U.S. intelligence agencies secretly sponsored Chilean news outlets, like the influential newspaper El Mercurio, and supported populist uprisings of truckers and housewives. On the economic front, the CIA coordinated efforts to starve the Chilean government of funds and to drive unemployment higher.
Worsening joblessness could then be spun by the CIA-financed news outlets as proof that Allendes policies didnt work and that the only choice for Chile was to scrap its social programs. When Allende compromised with the Right, that had the additional benefit of causing friction between him and some of his supporters who wanted even more radical change.
More:
http://www.alternet.org/story/151209/the_gop%27s_cia_playbook%3A_destabilize_country_to_sweep_back_into_power
Socialistlemur
(770 posts)I would add its very corrupt and seems to work as a network of mafias and corruption nodes. This is why the Venezuelan economy is mighty sick.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)These are some examples among so many other issues screaming how misguided US actions have been in this hemisphere. Some try to make us fall for the "let's just forget about the past and move on". It's not even about the past. It's the present. The harassing, the meddling, the spying, the use of the US military and governamental apparatus in favor obscure economic interests. Everything that needs to go.
Thanks for sharing this, Judi.