FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s Vilification of Latin America

by MARK WEISBROT

President Obama went too far in throwing gratuitous insults at President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela on Friday in an interview in Miami.  By doing so, he not only offended the majority of Venezuelans, who voted to re-elect their president on October 7, but even many who did not.  Chávez is fighting for his life, recovering from a difficult cancer operation; in Latin America, as in most of the world, this wholly unnecessary vilification of Chávez by Obama is a breach not only of diplomatic protocol but also of ordinary standards of civility.

Perhaps even more importantly, Obama’s ill-timed aspersions sent an unpleasant message to the rest of the region.  While Obama can get away with anything in the major media outlets, you can be sure that his remarks were noticed by the presidents and foreign ministries of Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia and others. The message was clear: Expect four more years of the same failed Cold War policies toward Latin America that President George W. Bush championed and Obama continued in his first term.

These presidents see Chávez as a close friend and ally, someone who has helped them and the region; like millions of Venezuelans they are praying for his recovery. They also see Washington as responsible for the bad relations between the U.S. and Venezuela (as well as the hemisphere generally), and these unfortunate remarks are additional confirmation.  At the 2012 Summit of the Americas, Obama found himself as isolated as George W. Bush was at the notorious 2005 summit. It was a sea change from the 2009 Summit, where everyone – including Chávez – greeted Obama warmly and saw in him the potential for a new era of U.S.-Latin American relations.

To these governments, Obama’s broadsides about Chávez’s “authoritarian policies” and “suppression of dissent” have a bad smell, even ignoring the offensive timing.  Venezuela just had an election in which the opposition, which has most of the income and wealth of the country, as well as most of the media, mobilized millions of voters.  The turnout was 81 percent of registered voters, with about 97 percent of the voting-age population registered.  The government did not “suppress dissent,” nor has it done so in other elections; or even when the dissenters shut down the oil industry and crippled the economy in 2002-2003 – actions that would have been illegal and blocked by the force of the state in the United States.  Peaceful protestors in Venezuela are far less likely to get beaten or tear-gassed or shot with rubber bullets, by security forces, than they are in Spain, and probably most other democracies.

Yes, there have been abuses of authority in Venezuela, as in all of the hemisphere — as President Obama should know. It was Obama who defended the imprisonment without trial for more than two-and-a-half years, and abuse in custody, of Bradley Manning, which was condemned by the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Torture. It is Obama who has refused to grant freedom to Native American activist Leonard Peltier, widely seen throughout the world as a political prisoner, now in a U.S. prison for 37 years.  It is Obama who claims the right, and has used it, to kill American citizens without arrest or trial.

Venezuela is a middle-income country where the rule of law is relatively weak, as is the state generally (hence the absurdity of calling it “authoritarian”).  But compared with other countries of its income level, it does not stand out for anything in the realm of human rights abuses. Certainly there is nothing in Venezuela comparable to the abuses by Washington allies such as Mexico or Honduras – where candidates for political office, opposition activists, and journalists are regularly murdered.  And much of the scholarly research on Venezuela under Chávez shows that it is more democratic and has more civil liberties than ever before in its own history.

By contrast, we in the United States are not doing so well by comparison to our own history and income level.  We have suffered a serious loss of civil liberties under the administrations of George W. Bush and President Obama.  And of course if we count the victims of U.S. crimes abroad – the civilians and children killed by drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for example – President Obama, the one with the “kill list,” has little standing to criticize almost any foreign president.

“We would want to see a strong relationship between our two countries, but we’re not going to change policies that prioritize making sure that there’s freedom in Venezuela,” Obama said, according to the Associated Press.

I can’t think of anyone who believes that U.S policy in Venezuela, from Washington’s involvement in the 2002 military coup to continued funding today for Venezuelan opposition groups, has anything to do with promoting “freedom.”  This was just another public insult.

The Venezuelan government responded angrily to the remarks.  But perhaps they would be more forgiving if they knew just how little President Obama, who never set foot in Latin America before he was president, knows about Venezuela or the region.

When President Obama met with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff he said:

“It gives me an opportunity as well to remark on the extraordinary progress that Brazil has made under the leadership of President Rousseff and her predecessor, President Lula, moving from dictatorship to democracy …”

So, if Obama (and his staff) didn’t even know that Brazil’s dictatorship came to an end more than a decade before Lula was elected in 2002, how can he be expected to know anything about Venezuela?  I mean, Brazil is a big country, bigger than the continental U.S. and the sixth largest economy in the world.

Obama fired his National Security Adviser for Latin America after the debacle at the 2012 Summit. He should fire the hack who fed him the insults for his Miami interview and the incompetent slob who made him embarrass himself in front of the President of Brazil. Then he can clean out some of the 1950s Cold Warriors from the State Department.  It’s fine if he’s not interested in Latin America – better for the region and the world – but he and his administration are creating a lot of unnecessary hostility.

Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This essay originally appeared in Al Jazeera.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
Steve Horn
What Do a Louisiana Pipeline Explosion and Dakota Access Pipeline Have in Common? Phillips 66
Brian Saady
Why Corporations are Too Big to Jail in the Drug War
Graham Peebles
Ethiopia: Peaceful Protest to Armed Uprising
Luke Meyer
The Case of Tony: Inside a Lifer Hearing
Binoy Kampmark
Adolf, The Donald and History
Robert Koehler
The Great American Awakening
Murray Dobbin
Canadians at Odds With Their Government on Israel
Fariborz Saremi
A Whole New World?
Joyce Nelson
Japan’s Abe, Trump & Illegal Leaks
Christopher Brauchli
Trump 1, Tillerson 0
Yves Engler
Is This Hate Speech?
Dan Bacher
Trump Administration Exempts Three CA Oil Fields From Water Protection Rule at Jerry Brown’s Request
Richard Klin
Solid Gold
Melissa Garriga
Anti-Abortion and Anti-Fascist Movements: More in Common Than Meets the Eye
Thomas Knapp
The Absurd Consequences of a “Right to Privacy”
W. T. Whitney
The Fate of Prisoner Simón Trinidad, as Seen by His U. S. Lawyer
Brian Platt
Don’t Just Oppose ICE Raids, Tear Down the Whole Racist Immigration Enforcement Regime
Paul Cantor
Refugee: the Compassionate Mind of Egon Schwartz
Norman Richmond
The Black Radical Tradition in Canada
Barton Kunstler
Rallying Against the Totalitarian Specter
Judith Deutsch
Militarism:  Revolutionary Mothering and Rosie the Riveter
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir Evoked a Lot More International Attention in the 1950s Than It Does Now
Adam Phillips
There Isn’t Any There There
Louis Proyect
Steinbeck’s Red Devils
Randy Shields
Left Coast Date: the Dating Site for the ORWACA Tribe
Charles R. Larson
Review: Bill Hayes’ “Insomniac City”
David Yearsley
White Supremacy and Music Theory
February 16, 2017
Peter Gaffney
The Rage of Caliban: Identity Politics, the Travel Ban, and the Shifting Ideological Framework of the Resistance
Ramzy Baroud
Farewell to Doublespeak: Israel’s Terrifying Vision for the Future
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail