|
in elections that are far, FAR more transparent than our own--to DENY the credentials of any foreign ambassador.
That is his right.
Ergo, for the U.S. to push an ambassador on Venezuela who insulted Venezuela in public, in Senate hearings, even before he was confirmed, is a diplomatic affront. It is rude and insulting and, if the U.S. persists in it, one can only surmise that the U.S. wants to create an incident.
If Palmer's remarks had been a mere goof, then his nomination would have been withdrawn immediately, because diplomats are NOT supposed to say goofy, off-the-cuff things in public (and good ones are careful in private as well)--let alone before they even land in the country they were assigned to. Since his nomination was NOT withdrawn immediately, we can only surmise that the State Department okayed his insulting remarks. That impression will linger even if his nomination is now withdrawn. He will be known as a meddling, interfering, disrespectful 'diplomat,' who, frankly, is going to have trouble almost anywhere he goes in Latin America (except perhaps in a few U.S. client states, and even in those, governments don't like flappy-mouthed U.S. ambassadors--ALL Latin American countries are sensitive on this issue).
He cannot serve in Venezuela. Chavez will not accept his credentials--and, truly, Chavez has good reason to be wary of U.S. ambassadors, God knows. This 'ambassador' appointee effectively called Chavez a "terrorist"--Chavez, who has HARMED NO ONE--and he went further and tried to undermine morale in the Venezuelan military! This is simply unacceptable in an ambassador to, of all places, Venezuela, where the U.S. has spent multi-millions of dollars on rightwing groups trying to overthrow the Chavez government and supported the 2002 coup attempt.
It is not "appeasement" to respect a legitimate government. "Appeasement" is, in any case, a "Cold War" word, and utterly ridiculous in the present circumstance. We are not at war with Venezuela. Venezuela does not have nuclear missiles pointed in our direction. Venezuela is neither a belligerent nor an alien country in any respect. It is a DEMOCRACY. So why are you talking about "appeasement"? The word to use is RESPECT. Not, "why should the U.S. appease Chavez?" Rather, "why should the U.S. respect Chavez and his legitimately elected government?"
We should respect Chavez and his legitimately elected government because that's how civilized countries behave!
Whether this one is civilized any more or not is an open question, as far as I'm concerned. We're killing more civilians in Afghanistan every week. How many countries has Chavez invaded and how many civilians has HE killed, hm? We've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
WHICH ONE is the more civilized country?
63% of the American people now oppose the war on Afghanistan, yet it goes on...and on...and on.
WHICH ONE is the democracy? The U.S., where the people have NO SAY in war or in anything else--or Venezuela, where they put everything under the sun to a vote of the people?
Barely civilized, and we can't even muster a little respect for a legitimate, democratic, beneficial government that has harmed no one!
That's where we're at--and it is sad, indeed.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
