We've Ignored The Americas At Our Own Peril

[Annie]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/03/another_step_to_the_left_in_latin_ame.html

Chavez, now this? We are paying for it already with refugees trying to escape. What do we do when they make deals with Al Queda or others? Agree to teach the language to 'wet backs?'

Another Step To The Left in Latin America?

Now it's Peru:

One of Latin America's most extraordinary political families is poised to produce another of the continent's Left-wing authoritarian leaders with no love for Washington.

Ollanta Humala is one of two favourites to become Peru's next president, a role for which, to believe his mother, he has been groomed from birth. [snip]

"The new world struggle is not between the Left and the Right, it is between the globalisers and the globalised and Peru falls into the latter category," he [Humala] said.

"We have to fight the pernicious effects of globalisation. I am a nationalist and anti-imperialist."

The former army colonel and coup leader is now only a few points behind the frontrunner for the April 9 elections, Lourdes Flores, in polls that underplay his support among the poor. His victory would usher into power yet another Latin American Left-winger hostile to the United States, like his friends Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and President Evo Morales of Bolivia.​

Meanwhile, Michelle Bachelet will be sworn in on Saturday as the new president of Chile. Andres Oppenheimer pens a tribute to outgoing Chilean President Ricardo Lagos in today's Miami Herald that includes this Q&A:

Q: A recent Globescan poll shows that Latin America is the world's region that is most critical of free-market capitalism. Can the region draw more investments with that attitude?

Lagos: ``I'm not surprised to find that response in Latin America. Too many countries have grown, have followed Washington's recipes, yet people haven't seen any benefits of that at their home level. Progress is seen on TV, but not at home. But investments are important. Latin America's defect is often wanting to blame others outside our hemisphere or our region for our problems. I'm not saying that there aren't things that need to be fixed -- but we often forget that our first responsibility is to put our house in order. In that sense, we need clear policies to attract investments.''
​

And Der Spiegel runs an interview with President-elect Bachelet touching on the legacy of Pinochet and the prospect of dealing with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and his "axis of good." Chile remains one of the few brightspots in South America. Washington should take extra care to maintain good relations with Ms. Bachelet's socialist government to help make sure it resists the siren song of Chavez's anti-American, anti-globlization influence that continues to make gains across the continent.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:22 AM

 

[NATO AIR]

Jackson Diehl had a must-read column in the WAPO about how Bachelet was a damn good defense minister before becoming president, cultivating close and effective relationships with the US military. Also about how our stupid policy of punishing allies who don't sign up for an exemption to the ICC for US forces is about to cost us big time in Latin America. This dumb ass crap needs to be stopped. Bolton's stupidity has us committing alliance suicide at a time when we need good, trustworthy friends more than ever.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/09/AR2006030902194.html

A Losing Latin Policy
Are We About to Punish Democratic Allies?

By Jackson Diehl
Friday, March 10, 2006; Page A19

In the past year Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has quietly corrected several of the Bush administration's most self-defeating first-term foreign policies -- such as its insistence on obstructing European diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear program rather than focusing pressure on the Iranians themselves. But a couple of shoot-yourself-in-the-foot practices linger from the days when a high-riding Bush team felt it could afford to champion unilateralism and narrow U.S. interests even if it meant damaging relations with important allies.

Nowhere is that more true than in Latin America, a region where political instability and anti-American feeling are steadily mounting, where Fidel Castro suddenly finds he has more friends than at any time in his four-plus decades in power -- and where the United States is seemingly going out of its way to punish the region's largest democracies, such as Mexico, Brazil and Chile.

This weekend Rice will visit Chile for the inauguration of a new president, Michelle Bachelet, a very 21st-century woman and, as a moderate socialist, the antithesis of Castro and the anti-democratic leftist populists emerging around the region. As defense minister, Bachelet oversaw Chile's participation in U.S. naval exercises, its quick deployment of peacekeepers to Haiti after the latest intervention by U.S. Marines and Chile's ongoing acquisition of F-16 aircraft. Yet she faces the prospect that U.S. military aid to her government will be terminated in the coming months and that Chile will have to pay sharply increased fees to the Pentagon to obtain training for its new F-16 pilots.

Why the harsh treatment? Because Chile's National Congress will soon ratify the treaty creating the International Criminal Court -- and it will not approve a side agreement demanded by the Bush administration that would exempt Americans in Chile from the court's jurisdiction. Though the court only recently began work, and the prospect that it would indict an American for a war crime is entirely theoretical, the administration's policy has been to insist that every nation receiving U.S. military aid sign an exemption agreement or face an aid cutoff, regardless of the political consequences. Destroying the court has been a pet cause for conservative ideologues in the Bush State Department, such as U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who in the first term insisted that his crusade take priority even over military relations with allies that dispatched troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some of those countries eventually obtained presidential exemptions provided for by a law that mandates the sanctions. At the moment, however, 12 of 21 nations in Latin America have been suspended from U.S. military training and aid programs because of the ICC rule, including Brazil, Peru, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Bolivia and Uruguay.

The latest to be punished: Mexico, which agreed last year to accept military assistance from the United States for the first time since 1960 -- only to have the program voided because, in theory, a U.S. citizen might one day be arrested there and extradited to The Hague for trial. U.S.-Mexican military cooperation on communications, counterterrorism and counternarcotics operations all stand to be affected.

Remarkably, the Defense Department -- nominally the chief beneficiary of this policy -- has had enough. The Pentagon's new Quadrennial Defense Review calls for unlinking military training programs from the International Criminal Court. "One has to weigh the hypothetical benefits of this policy in the future against the very real damage it is inflicting on our important relationships in the region," says Roger Pardo-Maurer, the deputy assistant defense secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs. "In the case of Mexico, which is one of our most important relationships, there's no question this is a setback. Suddenly we find we are in this glass box where we can't reach out to them."

Chile is next: Sanctions there would echo those of the 1970s, when military sales to the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet were banned. Only Chile is now the region's most prosperous and successful democracy. And its leader is Bachelet, who has advocated a strategic partnership between Chile and the United States. Given the anti-American axis forming around Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, that hardly seems like a stance that can be taken for granted -- or spurned.

Yet stiff opposition to common sense remains rooted in Rice's own department. The political-military bureau, once overseen by Bolton, has for years fought efforts to grant aid to U.S. allies that support the ICC. When a senior interagency meeting was convened last year to consider the issue, Bolton returned from New York to argue forcefully -- and successfully -- against any change of policy.

Administration officials say the issue is up for consideration again, and presidential waivers could be forthcoming for countries in Latin America and elsewhere that participate in the Pentagon's training programs. Will the decision come soon enough to rescue relations with Mexico, or with Chile's new president? It could be close.

 

[Annie]

Jackson Diehl had a must-read column in the WAPO about how Bachelet was a damn good defense minister before becoming president, cultivating close and effective relationships with the US military. Also about how our stupid policy of punishing allies who don't sign up for an exemption to the ICC for US forces is about to cost us big time in Latin America. This dumb ass crap needs to be stopped. Bolton's stupidity has us committing alliance suicide at a time when we need good, trustworthy friends more than ever.

Sorry, but Bolton isn't stupid. Not for any reason. If he made a mistake, it will be cared for, be careful you don't fall into the trap that you've accused others for, for far less reasons.

 

[NATO AIR]

Sorry, but Bolton isn't stupid. Not for any reason. If he made a mistake, it will be cared for, be careful you don't fall into the trap that you've accused others for, for far less reasons.

We now know that Bolton (and his dimwit sponsor Cheney) are the ones who were responsible for MOST of the dumb dumb, shoot ourselves in the foot policies from the first administration. I'm with Condi and co. on this one, it needs to be stopped. You haven't seen how Bolton's trying to undermine Condi on Iran? The man can't be trusted.

 

[Annie]

We now know that Bolton (and his dimwit sponsor Cheney) are the ones who were responsible for MOST of the dumb dumb, shoot ourselves in the foot policies from the first administration. I'm with Condi and co. on this one, it needs to be stopped. You haven't seen how Bolton's trying to undermine Condi on Iran? The man can't be trusted.

Sorry, but State IS at fault for Dubai. Neither Bush nor people were clued in, and should have been. Her scedualing has been grueling, but NO EXCUSES, right? Spinning this off as public being stupid, just is NOT going to wash.

 

[NATO AIR]

Sorry, but State IS at fault for Dubai. Neither Bush nor people were clued in, and should have been. Her scedualing has been grueling, but NO EXCUSES, right? Spinning this off as public being stupid, just is NOT going to wash.

I was not aware it was State. I thought it was that council or whatever which has people from Defense, Treasury State, etc etc.

We're not talking about the ports here anyway. We're talking about bad policy and then also Bolton undermining Rice on Iran. The man needs to be fired if he keeps it up.

 

[Annie]

I was not aware it was State. I thought it was that council or whatever which has people from Defense, Treasury State, etc etc.

We're not talking about the ports here anyway. We're talking about bad policy and then also Bolton undermining Rice on Iran. The man needs to be fired if he keeps it up.

perhaps the problem is State? Then your criticism is unwarranted? Where have the 'leaks' come from? Where have the explanations failed to come from? Who didn't clue top administrators in to the 'deal'? Why?

 

[NATO AIR]

perhaps the problem is State? Then your criticism is unwarranted? Where have the 'leaks' come from? Where have the explanations failed to come from? Who didn't clue top administrators in to the 'deal'? Why?

Like I said, I'm not familar enough with the government machinations here on this.

Here's Belgravia Dispatch on Bolton's insolence.

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/
Hard to imagine Adlai Stevenson, or Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or George Ball or Jeanne Kirkpatrick giving this kind of guffaw-inducing interview. More seriously however, did Bolton (whom I supported in the pages of this blog for the USUN job--albeit with some reticence) actually say as follows:

Back to Iran.............
Question: I think we've moved too slowly and they've gotten too far. It is frightening to me because Israel is such a small country, it would just take one, to get one off

JB: yeah

Question: One

JB: Well, the president has used this phrase enough times, I don't know if he ever used it in a speech, but he talks about his concern about a Nuclear Holocaust -- that's his phrase.

Question: He's right

JB: He's got Iran specifically in mind. That's why I am confident over time that whatever happens at the State Department, the President knows what he needs to do.

Question: You're clear on that.

JB: Yeah, he's got that, he's got North Korea which he calls a prison camp. He said to Kofi Annan last September - it's a disgrace that during our administrations this regime still keeps its entire population in a prison camp -- which Kofi didn't know what to say. There are things he's got in his mind that are very clearly fixed. [emphasis added]


One of the main hang-ups people had about Bolton was the so-called insubordination angle, ie. there had been rumblings he'd tried to circumvent policy objectives of the likes of Colin Powell and Richard Armitage (there was even at least one press account of similar machinations aimed at Condeleeza Rice, one that, funnily enough perhaps, reportedly also involved Iran policy). In this vein, it's hard not to read the language "whatever happens at the State Department" as a not insignificant dig at whatever Iran policy might emit from Condi Rice, Robert Zoellick, and Nicholas Burns. If I were advising John Bolton, I'd politely suggest he be a tad more circumspect, particularly in his public utterances. And yes, even in the odd ribald circumstances that can arise now and again on the purlieus of conferences, and especially on matters as sensitive as Iran policy.

 

[dilloduck]

Good cop bad cop?

 

[Annie]

Like I said, I'm not familar enough with the government machinations here on this.

Here's Belgravia Dispatch on Bolton's insolence.

...If I were advising John Bolton, I'd politely suggest he be a tad more circumspect, particularly in his public utterances. And yes, even in the odd ribald circumstances that can arise now and again on the purlieus of conferences, and especially on matters as sensitive as Iran policy...

I'm not going to disagree with this, in context. That's the problem with how you're reading it. A warning for circumspection, not an upbraid.

 

[NATO AIR]

Good cop bad cop?

Maybe, but this was more for domestic consumption than Iranian eyes. It shows them that though the balance has shifted, there is still a hardliner element in the USG that will stop at nothing to push their viewpoints.