Beautiful Horizons

Whining When Leadership Is Needed

Adam Isacson does a great service by not merely linking to, but also translating this article by Colombian journalist, Claudia Lopez about the recent petulance displayed by Colombian Vice President, Francisco Santos with regard to the fact that the departure of the Bush administration leaves the Uribe administration without a rubber stamp bff in the White House.

This part is especially accurate:

Those news make apparent the shameful contrast bewteen [sic] Brazilian and Colombian foreign policy. Thanks to the former, Brazil will become the United States’ strategic partner in the region, and thanks to the second Colombia will be it no longer. Brazil will take on this role for obvious reasons. Because it is the 10th-largest economy on the planet, the most stable and progressive democracy on the continent, the only one with a world-class foreign ministry and president, a player with regional and global leadership.

Brazil's diplomats are without peer in Latin America and arguably among the most skilled and savvy in the world. What's more, Lula had amicable relations with the Bush administration, although they did not rise to the lapdog level that the Uribe administration had with Bush.

She also does a great job of calling them out here:

If you want to be treated like statesmen, behave like statesmen. Stop asking, stamping your feet and threatening. Take the initiative, propose things and keep your word. Develop a bilateral agenda that incorporates both countries’ issues, interests and concerns, and propose specific goals within specific time periods.

The sad thing is it appears that they have no concept of diplomacy. They just want what they want when they want it and then become puerile when they get the slightest pushback.

What Lula Said

Change is needed and it appears to be on its way:

Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Monday called on the United States to end its economic embargo of Cuba, saying it makes no sense in the 21st Century.

Speaking at a Wall Street Journal-sponsored investment forum in New York, Silva also pointed to El Salvador's presidential election on Sunday as evidence democracy has spread across Latin America, warranting a reevaluation of the United States' relationship with the region.

At the end of his speech, Silva said the Cuba embargo is widely opposed across the region.

''There is nothing any more from the political perspective, from sociological perspective, from the humanitarian perspective that impedes the reestablishment of relations between the United States and Cuba,'' Silva said. ``It's not possible in the 21st Century to make policy looking toward the 20th Century -- let's think about looking toward the 22nd Century.''

There's also this:

Silva said he had been in touch with Latin American presidents and all were in favor of working together to forge a new relationship with the U.S. under the Obama administration.

''All of them want to work in partnership with the U.S. All of them are expecting the U.S. to establish a new relationship, a constructive relationship not based on political interference,'' Silva said, mentioning Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales as leaders he had spoken to.

''The United States of North America has the obligation and the extraordinary opportunity to re-establish a new relationship with Latin America,'' he said.

It's hard to imagine anything like this happening with either Bush or McCain in power.

Steve Benen Rocks

He fillets Dana Perino's eschewing of Bush administration responsibility for anything having to do with our economic state of affairs.

He nails Tucker Carlson's need for attention.

He also offers some effective deep-breath thinking on the allegations that Venezuela and Russia are establishing an agreement to allow long range bombers to have a base in Venezuela, about which the right has gotten itself into a terrific lather. First of all, Hugo Chavez is saying that it never happened:

President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that Russian bombers would be welcome in Venezuela, but the socialist leader denied that his country would offer Moscow its territory for a military base.

Chavez -- a fierce critic of Washington with close ties to Russia and Cuba -- said his government did not raise the possibility, as Russian media had reported.

''It's not like that,'' the president said, responding to a report by Interfax news agency quoting the chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, as saying some strategic bombers could be based on an island offered by Venezuela.

I don't think that this is a walk back by Chavez; after all he was not the party quoted.

Just Shut Up

As I mentioned before, Hugo Chavez is essentially a blowhard, who apparently has little self-control. One would think that he would be as enthusiastic as most of the nation is to see the Bush administration on its way out and could show a modicum of restraint, allowing Barack Obama to actually take office before the loony comments start.

Apparently not.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday Barack Obama had the "stench" of his predecessor as U.S. president and was at risk of being killed if he tries to change the American "empire."

Most world leaders expect a new era of U.S. foreign relations when Obama, a Democrat, is sworn in as president on Tuesday after Republican George W. Bush's eight years in the White House.

But Chavez said frayed ties with Washington were unlikely to improve despite the departure of Bush, who the Venezuelan leader has often called the "devil."

"I hope I am wrong, but I believe Obama brings the same stench, to not say another word," Chavez said at a political rally on a historic Venezuelan battlefield.

Among the other choice comments Chavez made: The president-elect of the United States seems to be a fiasco for his own people and for the world." Based on what?

This is an appeal to the base; in every sense of the word.

Hat tip to Steve Benen.

Unwelcome Pressure

Adam Isacson made a good catch here in reviewing a report on US DOD overseas spending and noting the following:

Which is why I was surprised this morning, when going through a recent Defense Department required report to Congress on its overseas military-aid programs (PDF), to find this on page 67, in a listing of Pentagon-funded humanitarian-assistance programs in 2007:

Country: Costa Rica

Dollar Amount: $920,971

Type of Support Provided: Infrastructure - Rehabilitate or repair - School renovation/construction, Clinic construction, 4 Minimal Cost projects

Purpose: Improves U.S. image with a government with anti-military sentiment. Project showcases U.S. Military multi-mission capabilities. Promoting democracy, regional prosperity, and stability.

There is something troubling about the notion that

(1) the U.S. image in a traditionally friendly country like Costa Rica is so low today that improving it is a reason given for a nearly $1 million military deployment; and

(2) it is seen as somehow in the U.S. interest to counteract “anti-military sentiment” in armyless Costa Rica.

This is not the first time the Bush administration has shown contempt for Costa Rica's refusal to establish a military. Former Costa Rican President Abel Pacheco agreed to allow his nation to be listed as a member of the Coalition of the Willing - notwithstanding the absence of a military - and was forced to ask for the nation's name to be removed from the list when the public revolted against it. In addition, the Reagan administration sought to trash President Oscar Arias in the 1980's for having the temerity to oppose having a proxy war in a nation that his, unlike the US, bordered.

Costa Rica made a wise choice 60 years ago in eliminating its military, committing to democracy and beating its swords into ploughshares. What's one nation's anti-military sentiment is another's commitment to peace.

The New York Times Gets It Completely Wrong

While we're still on the subject of Venezuela, the New York Times gets it incredibly wrong in an editorial published on Friday. To begin with, as Greg weeks points out here, the following comment displays an utter lack of awareness about a fundamental aspect of Latin American/US Relations:

For starters, the Obama administration could gain a lot of good will by supporting more aid, mostly from the International Monetary Fund, for Latin American countries sideswiped by the financial meltdown.

This makes as much sense as hiring Hannibal Lecter to be the head chef at a vegan restaurant or Barack Obama nominating Sarah Palin as Secretary of State. The IMF is anathema to Latin America; it is a pariah; it is loathed and despised. The Washington Consensus is dead. No nation in either Central or South America wants anything to do with them.

Then there's this:

We have no patience for Mr. Chávez’s corrupt and autocratic ways. But the Bush administration did enormous damage to American credibility throughout much of the region when it blessed what turned out to be a failed coup against Mr. Chávez.

As Adam Isacson notes, the Times is in a glass house with a stone in its hand:

With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona. But democracy has not yet been restored, and won't be until a new president is elected.

That self -awareness train rolls on and the editorial staff of the Times refuses to get on.

I Know the Phrase You're Looking For In Portuguese

I believe that the Washington Consensus should probably have a fork stuck in it. Boz has some good analysis here as to the reactions from Latin American nations who were browbeat for years by Washington as to how to run their economies.

In response to the title of Boz's post, I don't know how to say schadenfreude in Spanish, but in Portuguese, I believe that the term you're looking for is "bem feito," usually reserved for children when they get their comeuppance.

Tit for Tat Not Quid Pro Quo

The Bush administration is responding to Hugo Chavez's expelling of the US ambassador with plans to expel the Venezuelan ambassador. Amidst all the chest thumping on both sides there is this to consider:

While Mr. Chávez threatened yet again this week to halt American-bound oil cargoes, such a situation remains unlikely. For all the warnings, refusing to sell oil would probably hurt Venezuela more than the United States.

America is the country’s main customer for its oil, and therefore the most significant financier of Mr. Chávez’s attempts to assert great state control over Venezuelan society. By contrast, American refiners could buy oil elsewhere, though a disruption in Venezuelan oil supplies could cause ripples in an already weak American economy.

Venezuela will not halt oil shipments to the US and the US will not deem Venezuela a terrorist supporting state as it would greatly impact the flow of oil from Venezuela.

What is more disturbing is the possibility of Chavez supplying military support to Bolivia in the disturbances going on there as Boz notes here. What is encouraging is this bit of news:

President Evo Morales held talks with an opposition rival on Saturday, after a wave of political violence killed 15 people and prompted Mr. Morales to declare martial law in the remote province of Pando.

Mr. Morales called the talks with Mario Cossío, the governor of Tarija Province, which is rich with natural gas, to try to defuse a bitter power struggle with regional governors who are opposed to the president’s socialist reforms and who want a bigger share of energy resources for their regions. Mr. Cossío represented three other governors who refused to attend.

“We have fulfilled the objective of opening talks, and let’s hope that in the coming hours this turns into a sustained process of dialogue which results in a pact to resolve problems in the framework of national reconciliation,” Mr. Cossío told reporters after the meeting.

I'm glad to see them talking. I hope they continue to do so, perhaps with the help of Lula or someone far less bellicose than Chavez.

More Burnishing of Henry Kissinger's Undemocratic Reputation - Updated

The National Security Archives at George Washington University has released the transcripts of telephone conversations obtained through the Freedom of Information Act of Henry Kissinger talking up the possibility of the overthrow of a democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. When the Secretary of State at the time expresses the desire to “see what we can work out [with Allende]," Nixon orders Kissinger to prevent that from happening.

Remember all this the next time you see the mainstream media bring Kissinger in to speak authoritatively about foreign relations.

Update: Marc Cooper has much more here.

Godwin's Law at the WTO

Brazil's Foreign Minister, Celso Amorim, in advance of of a WTO meeting in Geneva made the following comment:

"Goebbels used to say if you repeat a lie several times it becomes a truth," Amorim told reporters at the World Trade Organization, where top negotiators from over two dozen countries are expected Monday for the official start of the talks.

This is a truly boneheaded comment by the leading diplomat for a nation that has probably the sharpest diplomats in Latin America. There is plenty to criticize concerning the US and Europe with regard to trade: the continued intrasnigence displayed by the US with regard to the cotton subsidies decision, the EU's failure to moe on sugar subsidies, the US' ongoing tariff on Brazilian ethanol, etc.

This is a distraction from some issues of genuine concern. Amorim could have easily made the same point without invoking Goebbels. Having mentioned Goebbels, he has only succeeded in making himself look bad and clouding the issues of genuine concern.