By
Mark Weisbrot
This
op-ed was published by The Guardian Unlimited on April 22,
2009. If anyone wants to reprint it, please include a link to the
original.
What
is the opposite of "damage control?" Repair
control? Obama's Latin America advisor and director for the
Summit of the Americas Jeffrey Davidow did his best to undermine
the president's efforts at diplomacy in Trinidad. Responding
immediately to Obama's charm offensive, Davidow told reporters
that "there is a sizable population in Venezuela, probably
the very, very vast majority of Venezuelans who have a more
favorable attitude to President Obama than they have to [Hugo Chávez]."
Davidow is a career "diplomat" - his tenure stretches
back to 1973, when he served in the U.S. embassy in Chile while
the Nixon administration overthrew the last (pre-1990s) social
democratic government in South America. He knew exactly what he
was doing last weekend: deliberately insulting a foreign head of
state - and one with a penchant for responding in kind - so as to
re-start the war of words that his boss was trying to put behind
us.
This was distinctly different from just pandering to the
Republicans or the Florida Cubans - who went
ballistic over the Obama-Chávez handshake
and smiles that graced the front page of the New York Times.
There were many other ways to backtrack and perform that
traditional act of political cowardice. Davidow's statement was
designed to provoke.
He should be dismissed, and not invited to provide further advice
to the present administration.
Davidow's tactic was a common practice during the Bush
administration: whenever President Chávez of Venezuela, sometimes
prompted by U.S. Members of Congress, tried to pursue a thaw in
relations, the Bush administration would deliver one insult after
another until Chávez would finally let loose with a scathing
response.
Perhaps the most clever of these was then Vice President
Dick Cheney's provocation in November 2007, saying that Chávez
"does not represent the future of Latin America, and the
people of Peru I think deserve better in their leadership. .
."
If you watch the video
it does not appear to be a slip of the tongue. And Cheney may not
know who the president of Uruguay is, but as an oil man from
Halliburton, he can certainly find Venezuela on a map. He probably
said "Peru," because he knew that Chávez would respond
by saying, "look at this idiot who doesn't even know the
difference between Venezuela and Peru." Which Chávez
promptly said.
This time Chávez is not taking the bait. In fact, most of the
left presidents of Latin America were duly impressed with
President Obama's personal attitude - he acted like the former
community organizer he is, as he strode over to Chávez to shake
his hand.
These presidents seem determined - for now -- to respond to
Obama's charm offensive with peace, love and understanding. Even
Raul Castro of Cuba responded immediately to Obama's easing of
travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban-Americans by stating
that he is ready to discuss "human rights, freedom of the
press, political prisoners - everything." He added: "We
could be wrong. We admit it. We're human beings."
Chávez, who said he had no doubt that relations with the U.S.
would improve under Obama, announced the naming of a new
ambassador to the United States, a post that is currently vacant,
and discussed this at the summit with U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton.
Obama also made some unprecedented statements for a U.S.
president, acknowledging that the United States has "at times
sought to dictate our terms."
All of this, as well as the continued pressure from presidents
including Brazil's Lula da Silva and Argentina's Cristina
Fernandez de Kirchner for an end to the Cuba embargo, has widened
the rift between Obama and his advisers.
President Evo Morales of Bolivia asked Obama to denounce an
apparent assassination plot against him. Last Thursday, three of
the five men that the government says were part of this plot were
killed in a shootout with police, and evidence seized in their
hotel led to a sizeable arms cache. Morales said that if Obama did
not repudiate this plot, "I might think it was organized
through the embassy."
Obama stated: "I just want to make absolutely clear that I am
absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows
of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the
hemisphere."
Morales has reason to be suspicious. In addition to past U.S.
intervention there, the U.S. Agency for International Development
is currently pouring $89 million annually into Bolivia, an amount
that is - relative to Bolivia's economy -- equivalent to what the
United States is spending on the Iraq war. USAID, which is
part of the U.S. State Department, has admitted to funding
opposition groups in Bolivia but has refused to disclose all of
the groups that it is funding there. This is despite repeated
requests under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
One of President Obama's campaign promises was for more
transparency in government, including responses to such requests
for information that is not classified intelligence. Not only the
Bolivian government but the American people have a right to know
what groups and activities U.S. tax dollars are funding in Bolivia
- especially since some of the opposition groups there have been
engaged in violent actions aimed at toppling the elected
government.
So long as the administration refuses to release this information,
it is difficult to see how Obama can accomplish his stated goal of
re-establishing trust.
Latin America's left leaders are willing to do as Obama asks and
put aside the grievances of the recent past - including
Washington's documented
role in overthrowing Venezuela's elected government in 2002.
But they cannot ignore the present.
As Obama himself said at the Summit, "The test for all of us
is not simply words, but also deeds."
|
|
Center
for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite
400, Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356
|
|