- BIG NEWS:
- The Pope
- |
- Russia
- |
- Afghanistan
- |
- India
- |
 |
||
As Iran stumbles deeper into political crisis, with scores of protestors murdered and likely more deaths coming after Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami declared them "worthy of execution," the Republicans have diligently gone about exercising their best skills and resources to show support for these brave demonstrators - by sharply attacking President Barack Obama.
That's not to say that Obama shouldn't be vigorously criticized by opponents in both parties - that's the role that presidents are supposed to play. However critics would be better off focusing on his soft spots, such as the incoherence on healthcare, flawed climate bill, or transparency issues, as the president has actually displayed pitch perfect instincts so far in handling the challenges of both Iran and the "Shah of Venezuela" Hugo Chávez.
Dealing with these volatile characters requires a careful dance, with new steps displayed every day. As noted by Alvaro Vargas Llosa in the New York Times, the recent coup (or counter-coup) in Honduras is eagerly being seized upon by President Chávez, as he attempts to play the unlikely role as the hero of democracy in Latin America. However this mission is made somewhat more difficult by the fact that there exists a nearly identical consensus between the Obama Administration and the Bolivarian Revolution on the Honduras events. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made clear and strong statements about the need to return to constitutional order, while President Obama described the coup action as illegal.
Although some Republicans will once again resort to their slings and arrows over the initial Honduras policy (and to be fair, President Manuel Zelaya was attempting to dismantle the constitution and illegally extend his rule), the position taken by Washington is the very last thing that Mr. Chávez wanted to see. He likes it no more than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likes the fact that it is Europe who is coming down hardest on Iran in this crisis, compared to relative moderation of Obama. It makes it harder for both of them to play the conspiracy theory blame game.
There are two reasons why both the authoritarians of Persia and the Orinoco Belt represent a common foreign policy challenge to the United States. Firstly, they both lean upon a brand of populism that is heavily dependent upon an outdated conception of anti-Americanism. They have woven a narrative, backed only by selective scraps of facts combined with myths, that the United States is a hostile, hateful, and aggressive power which is responsible for nearly every social problem of their country. Oh yes, and they also want to invade us, so we had better arm ourselves to the teeth.
This narrative makes for efficient politics and tosses more fuel to the ever growing fires of nationalism, but becomes a harder story to sell when you have an African-American president of an immigrant father with the middle name "Hussein" who is more popular on the streets on Tehran and Caracas than their own angry leaders.
Secondly, I consider Iran and Venezuela together because of their mutually supportive and burgeoning alliance (this has also been pointed out by Moisés Naím). They are cooperating together along with Russia to build a natural gas cartel, they have unregistered flights allegedly bringing scores of Hezbollah members into Latin America, Chávez happily provides Iran with Bolivian and possibly Venezuelan Uranium, while the Venezuelan government even engages in vigorous anti-Semitism to please their friends in Persia and the Middle East (see this interview we recorded with a Jewish student leader who was attacked on state television). Additionally, while Iran maintains a stable of political prisoners such as Behrooz Javid-Tehrani, Chávez is doing his best to copy these tactics with prisoners such as Eligio Cedeño - a case I am directly involved in.
Obama's approach to both Iran and Venezuela takes a sledgehammer to their anti-American narratives, appealing directly to the people by recognizing the points of contention, sometimes even apologizing, before condemning the abuses of the world's autocrats. For Latin America, the doctrine was laid out during the April speech to the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad, as Obama recognized that in the past Washington had dictated its terms and made bad decisions, but looked a start a new good neighbor policy built upon mutual trust. In Cairo, his speech was even more dramatic, and some would even argue that the current events in Iran would not be happening if it were not for this significant change in rhetoric.
David Bromwich has a review of Obama's Cairo speech along with a review of Leslie H. Gelb's new book in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books which gets right down to the central issue which divides some Republicans and some Democrats on the president's new approach: is anti-Americanism successful as a populist dynamic in Iran and Venezuela because the people hate us for who we are, or for the policies we conduct? Bromwich writes that we shouldn't be so quick to accept the Gelb's Machiavellian argument that anti-Americanism is simply interwoven into international politics and should therefore be ignored:
"For if this is so, it may give the United States carte blanche for any military action whatever; after all, if 'anti-Americanism' is so ingrained, it is possible that nothing we do will make things worse. Gelb has much to say about negotiated outcomes. Yet he allows us to fall back on the perception that these people hate us for what we are. This common and undemanding position relaxes the conscience of the country by awarding us a permanent bill of acquittal. It is essentially a parental message of comfort. Is such a view compatible with citizenship in a democracy?"
Like it or not, past U.S. administrations have at times conducted bad foreign policy in these regions - and memories of these events have been slow to fade away. While certainly the political realities and strategic imperatives which drove these complicated decisions need to be placed in context, we are not going to get very far without addressing grievances and then moving past them.
At the heart of our problems with Iran and Venezuela are the international perceptions of American power and the legitimacy of its use. The violent populists in control of both countries have sought to portray one illustration of the abuses of a unipolar, brute force exercised without consensus or common value. Obama, through his "over-the-head" diplomacy, speaking directly to Iranian and Venezuelan citizens instead of to their leaders, is attempting to challenge these myths and offer a competing, positive vision for relations among nations. Nobody is trying to win a popularity contest here, and it is irrelevant whether or not the United States is liked or admired in conducting successful foreign policy. However, the most effective way to constrain these leaders at the current juncture is by proving through example that they are feeding their own citizens lies about the intentions of the United States, while exposing their instrumentalization of anti-Americanism for what it really is.
Follow Robert Amsterdam on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robertamsterdam
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Regarding the author Robert Amsterdam, you would think that someone who has represented wily former Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky would be aware of Moscow's counselling role to both Caracas and Tehran (hand in hand with Beijing, of course). Maybe Mr. Amsterdam is being coy.
Nonetheless, I don't think the current versions of the ruling elite in Venezuela and Iran are fooled by a cosmetic shift in Washington's pitchman, er, president. They fully realize who and what genuinely rules America, and a change in overt tone from the office of US President doesn't shift overall interests and objectives in oil-rich regions of the world.
You, the Rockefellers and Rothschilds may fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
The author writes:
"They have unregistered flights allegedly bringing scores of Hezbollah members into Latin America, Chávez happily provides Iran with Bolivian and possibly Venezuelan Uranium, while the Venezuelan government even engages in vigorous anti-Semitism to please their friends in Persia and the Middle East ."
So author, please explain how what Obama is doing fixes any of this? But you're right on one point
Others WILL judge the U.S. by our policies, and not just because we're Americans. But if those policies are stupid and don't promote freedom and democracy, who the hell CARES how they judge us?
Instead of accepting that book from Chavez, he should have tossed it in the garbage.
Mr Amsterdan: We, the general public, are not s*t*u*p*i*d. And, by the way, Moise Naim was one of the gorillas behind thee 2000 failed coup against Chavez. Don't kid yourself into thinking you can fool us.
It seems to me Amsterdam's a paid PR spokesman for the the Venezuelan right-wingers.
I never met a Chavista who didn't accuse an anti-Chavista of being "paid," when the reality is, it's the exact opposite:
It's the Chavistas who are paid for their loyalty, with jobs and other favors.
As a rule, Chavistas are low class, incompetent, lazy, and corrupt--which is why the country is going down the toilet economically and socially. A worthless class, like those who adore Castro.
Something is clear, Obama is no interventionist. Good bye to excuses. It is time to grow up.
No doubt the rest of the world "loves" Obama is the fact so many of its people are under the impression that the President has repudiated the policies of his predecesso
Now, Obama's rhetoric and demeanor can certainly be contrasted favorably with that of W-since the former is eloquent and measured, calm and collected as opposed to oafish, monomaniacal and bellicose.
Obama's actions, so far, have been far less reckless than Bush II's, but there is a growing restlessness among progressives and non-interv
If Obama wishes to achieve peace in the Middle East, he must first pledge no more invasions, war, and no more one sided support for the albatross around the neck of U.S. policy in the region.
If he desires good relationships with nations like Venezuela, it would behove him to leave these matters to Venezuelans-all Venezuelans, not just exiles in Miami or middle and upper class inhabitants of Caracas. Oh, and no more coup attempts, please.
So how do you feel about Chavez trying to air-drop $300mn worth of weapons to FARC - or threatening to invade Honduras?
If he tries to intervene in Honduras, he's get the same nationalistic blowback we have earned for ourselves by decades of intervention.
His threats to invade might actually help the coup leaders, by tagging the removed president as a tool of foreign powers.
Time for us to let people of the region settle their own affairs. After a decade or so, we might gain some respect, and people there -- the people, not the elites -- might actually think our ideas mean something.
As a Venezuelan, I must thank you for this article. With Obama as a President Chavez will not have the foreign enemy anymore to blame for everything while repressing our people more and more every day. Yes, he has been democratically elected, but using PUBLIC funds without any limitation. I would not call that democracy nor transparency.
If the Venezuelans didn't like him they wouldn't vote for him. Perhaps you are one of those are aren't benefitting from Chavez.
According to UNICEF's statistics on poverty, Venezuelans have the SAME percentage as far as poverty is concerned as they had before Chavez came to power.
The Iraqis routinely voted for Saddam ... they must have really liked him.
Chaves and Lula rules , baby
"African-American president of an immigrant father with the middle name "Hussein" who is more popular on the streets on Tehran and Caracas than their own angry leaders."
That's probably true. Obama probably is more popular in either country than their own leaders.
"...the "Shah of Venezuela" Hugo Chávez."
The Shah was placed by the foreign imperialists. That's really using some "poetic license" to compare Chavez to the Shah of Iran.
"Firstly, they both lean upon a brand of populism that is heavily dependent upon an outdated conception of anti-Ameri
That was true until President Obama was elected - they were afraid of being invaded. That's not called "anti-Americanism", that's called sovereignty and national security.
Unlike Chavez, Ahmadinejad appears to have a real problem with antisemitism. Rather than squabbling with Chavez, investors should be looking to buy some stake in the regional banking system he's building.
Also, Chavez seems pretty happy, not angry like a powerless angstivist. Did you see the smile on Chavez' face when he was meeting President Obama?
"Unlike Chavez, Ahmadinejad appears to have a real problem with antisemitism. Rather than squabbling with Chavez, investors should be looking to buy some stake in the regional banking system he's building."
So then after they finance and build the thing ... Chavez can seize all the assets like he's done with every other foreign investment he can get his mitts on?
The author assumes that people in the rest of the world have nothing else to do but listen to the POTUS and that they have no idea what this country has been up to in the rest of the world over the last 8 years. The author also assumes that people in other countries don't realize that our POTUS has decided not to hold the Bush Executive Branch accountable for crimes committed against people in other sovereign nations. They know the US is in violation of International law, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and even US law. Obama may be talking directly to citizens of countries whose leaders are disliked by the US, but while Obama's speaks, those same citizens know of America's atrocities and human rights violations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They know these atrocities have gone unchecked, and they no doubt say to themselves, "If the US could do that to people in countries that never attacked America, they could do that to me." Conversation over.
BINGO...an
If voting present is a strategy, then he will be successful. He does nothing to ruffle anybodies feathers, take a bold stance, or stand up for freedom.
It's a bold stance when you decide to stand up for freedom in a manner that includes other people in other countries, not kills them.
How brilliant! I guess Obama's strategy of hurting our friends, undermining freedom and democracy, and supporting Marxist thugs is just brilliant! It will help our enemies love us!!!
Latin Americans are realizing Obama supports their Marxist oppressors. But what else can we expect from Obama? As his parents, relatives, friends and mentors, Obama is a U.S. hating Marxist. As such, he sides with the oppressors in Iran and with the Marxist dictators and would-be dictators in Latin America.
Zelaya behaved illegally (like Obama) and the Honduras military acted under the orders of the country's Supreme Court to remove that president, and to elevate the person next in line under the Honduras Constitution. This is Constitutional Democracy in action combating illegal behavior by a sitting President. That's why Obama does not like it!
Zelaya was implementing in Honduras the strategy devised by Castro and implemented by Chavez and the rest of the Marxist thugs to gain absolute power. That’s why all of them are complaining about it. They would like Zelaya to be reinstated so he can continue with his plans to enslave Honduras while pretending to act democratically. That's why Obama wants Zelaya reinstated!
I too have problems with some of Obama's policies, but I also acknowledge that Obama is a man of exceptional intelligence and integrity, and you are clearly not a rational person. I am sorry, but I cannot take anything you say seriously. In fact, you amuse me.
You are delusional.
He wants to take over all the pupuserias.
The only significant audience for anti-American narratives,
are anti-American Americans, still sovietized.
Chavez is horrified because this Honduras coup, or whatever you want to call it, will stand as the model for interfering with the way he plans to usurp rule at the end of his second term.
Another Israeli perspective with a twist.
You mean with a lot of 'twisted' adjectives?
:)
Chavez is the "Shah of Venezuela huh"?
Except for the whole democracy stuff. Yeah, they are exactly the same
And you call Honduras a "counter-coup?" That's a new one as well.
Personally I thank Obama for showing much more strength then I thought he would have on these types of matters and shifting our discussion towards sanity. There is no doubt that the author of this article would be cheering on the coup in Honduras if Obama had not already come out against it. And Obama is the first president in my lifetime who would not support a right wing dictator taking over for a left wing elected president in Latin America. Bush for instance installed a dictator in Haiti, attempted to install one in Venezuala (which the author obviously supported), and allegedly helped rig an election in Mexico.
Why do columns such as this side step the US involvement (corporate and gov't) in causing the bad view of america?
People don't like Wall Street not because they "don't understand" but because they DO!
People in Latin America know exactly what the US Corporations have done to them. Its the Americans who don't know. So know amount of political jedi mind tricking will work on the people.
Obama sounds good to the people of Venezuela (even Chavez) but just a few weeks ago they had to ban Coca Cola from selling their product there. While the America press tried to make it look like a Soviet style crackdown, what was left out is that Coke is using a cancer causing ingredient in its product.
Just last night on Air America, Ron Reagan had a guest who had written a book about Coca-Cola. He discussed some of their unethical business practices and so on. One thing he mentioned that in other countries, sometimes COca-Cola is made differently/ has diff. ingredients. And in some places in So. America, as well as Mexico, they put cyclamates in Coke ! That's insane. So good remark--and unnoticed (or unreported) by the press, indeed.
Why this author leaves out corporate involvement anti-democratic movements in latin america seems quite obvious
That's his job. He is a lawyer who represents international corporations.
I'm quite certain at least some of the people his firm represents stand to gain financially from right wing policy in latin america and conversely stand to lose by left wing economic policy in latin america.
He is a paid advocate
Enrique Krauze describes Hugo Chavez as the "Shah" - acting not like he is the president but rather the owner of Venezuela.
Venezuela is not a dictatorship nor a perfect democracy - I believe that "plebiscitarian authoritarianism" is the best description. The democratic process has been used to assault all autonomy of institutions. There is no independence of the judiciary, no independence of the legislature, and an apartheid-like assault on opposition politicians (Ledezma, Lopez, Rosales, etc.) accompanied by an intolerance of free press (Globovision).
Whereas the Honduras coup exhibits the classic threat to Latin American democracy as carried out by the military, the tragedy in Venezuela exhibit the new threat - executive dominance of the legislature.
It's funny how all these democrats have such a penchant for constitutional editing to lift term limits and hold on to power for life.
"There is no independence of the judiciary, no independence of the legislature, and an apartheid-like assault on opposition politicians (Ledezma, Lopez, Rosales, etc.) accompanied by an intolerance of free press (Globovision)"
They do have an independent legislature and judiciary. If by not independent you mean that because Chavez is so popular that his party controls them, then you could say the same thing about America
Whereas a few years ago Rosales tried to abolish the judiciary and the legislature and install an all-powerful executive branch during the attempted coup of Venezuela
The arrest of people who tried to overthrow their democracy does not bother me very much either. And I would very much support the same if the conservatives ever tried that here.
Neither do the foreign owned media stations who also participated, losing their broadcast license.
Its funny how conservatives have such a penchant for opposing the leaders who the people support. You don't think the people of Venezuela have the right to establish their own rules on term limits? Why not?
Sir, you decry "executive dominance of the legislature" in Venezuela. Where the hell were you over the last 8 years, when Bush/Cheney ran rough-shod over the US Congress and Senate?
What I don't understand about Honduras is that the Supreme Court and Legislature both acted in concert. If a president is properly removed by the (also democratically elected) other branches of government for breaking the law (taking a mob and invading the air force base CAN'T be legal ... they'd be dead if they tried it here) who the heck is *supposed* to carry it out if not the military? The the Judges in their robes? Are the legislators supposed to do it?
Or are we saying that Honduras is not allowed any process to remove a president who is actively raising mobs in the street to physically flaunt court decisions?
"The tragedy in Venezuela exhibits the new threat - executive dominance of the legislature".
What do you know? What your sponsors from Globovision tell you?.
The legislature in Venezuela has its own election process. People vote.
Obama's foreign policy is spot on.. you reach out to your enemies. they can either accept, which would be great, or they can smack your hand away.. Iran smacked obamas hand but the world has seen his effort to reach out and now Irans leadership looks more isolated than ever.. either way obama wins. obama style wont work with North Korea because that country's leadership is insane.. But it seems to be working well with Iran.. Clearly there is a time and place for the hardliner approach that john McCain prefers and that time is nearing with north Korea. But more often than not obamas approach will work well
Agreed !
Well said.
Explain how Obama's policy worked in Iran? .....Are you serious !
I would be more interested in you explaining why you believe his statement was wrong. I think it is covered in the story that Obama reached out directly to the people with his speech in Egypt and his willingness to talk to Iran...whi
Ditto. All I see are failures.
Yes. If you reach out first and are rebuked, then it is the other who has to defend their actions and you who then has justification. Some people have difficulty with higher level concepts.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
