[Keeping nations out of Iran's orbit is] certainly a worthy goal -- and we have no objection to Mr. Obama's handshake with Mr. Chávez. The administration's strategy -- to open up a constructive dialogue with Venezuela and avoid being cast as Mr. Chávez's Yanqui foil -- is reasonable; it is also the same strategy as was tried, unsuccessfully, by the previous two administrations. What doesn't make sense is to deliberately ignore steps by Mr. Chávez to consolidate an autocracy. In so doing, the administration encourages Latin American governments that have shrunk from confronting the Venezuelan strongman to continue in their own silence. It sends pro-Chávez governments in countries such as Bolivia and Nicaragua the message that they can persecute their own domestic opponents with impunity. And it makes it more rather than less likely that Venezuela, with the help of Iran and Russia, will become a threat to the United States.
Peru's democratic government is to be congratulated for its decision to offer Mr. Rosales asylum. It is shameful that the Obama administration won't say so.
However, there are a couple of issues here. First of all, "shameful" might be a bit strong. Maybe it was a calculated and uncomfortable example of realpolitik, maybe it's a little more complicated. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and it could be that the US embassy set up Rosales' asylum in Peru. Nor it it clear that a statement by Obama would have made life easier for other opponents still in Venezuela.
I also think it's incredibly disingenuous to say that Obama's policy has been tried unsuccessfully by the previous two administrations. In the year and a half that Clinton's and Chávez's terms coincided, the latter was barely on the radar. It was also before several years of high oil prices filled the Venezuelan treasury, before Chávez began spending money abroad like a drunken sailor, and before the elections of Morales, Correa, and Ortega. Nothing Clinton did has much relevance on Chávez, because the situation has changed so much. It's like saying that teams should guard Lebron James a certain way, because after all in worked in 2004.
And as far as the Bush government, yes, it (correctly in my opinion) sought to lower the temperature in the bilateral relationship, but only in the second term. Before that, as the Post neglects to remind readers, it supported (at least tacitly) an anti-democratic coup and its top officials regularly criticized Chávez.
3 comments:
Another in the annals of Jackson Diehl jackassery, sez me. I agree with what you say and would take it further - the part about the conduct of past administrations actually disqualifies the piece from being taken seriously, as it demonstrates, yet again, a refusal to understand just how absolutely fundamental the events of April 2002 were in Venezuela. But I'd also add two things:
1) Peru is going out of its way to act like this is not a political issue and it won't affect relations w/ Venezuela (unsuccessfully, so far, as Chavez has recalled his ambassador). Having the US wade in with vocal denunciations would be unwelcome. Rosales himself was already obligated to promise to tone down the rhetoric after he arrived full of anti-Chavez bluster.
2) A significant quotient of non-crazy opposition supporters in Venezuela think Rosales is a total corrupto. That doesn't make it ok for Chavez to announce he's going to jail Rosales, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that Venezuelan justice system is a joke, but it's definitely possible that the Obama admin has better info than the WaPo ed board and has decided that it's not worth disturbing what are currently tranquil waters to defend someone who is distinctly lacking as a candidate for martyrdom.
Good point there about Peru, given that they are the country in the stickiest spot, and that we are on decent terms with their government, we should probably take their interests into account. Which is to say, we probably did take their interests into account.
The whole problem with Venezuela is that the ruling class was so thoroughly bankrupt that there isn't a clearly better option than Chávez from a Venezuelan standpoint, which is why he keeps winning, and which is something that we forget. Andrés Oppenheimer, of course no friend of Chávez, had a scene from Cuentos Chinos with a member of the Venezuelan opposition that just made them seem like the most entitled, arrogant, unqualified to govern people on the planet. That's just one example, but they keep slipping out (that documentary about the coup had a lot of others). I imagine that many (of not most) of his voters would prefer that he wasn't such a clown, but unfortunately it seems like he's going to have to drive the nation over a cliff before the opposition becomes the lesser of two evils.
Exactly. And Chavez is the master of pushing their buttons - the catchphrase in the 2002-2004 era of mobilization was "Chavez los tiene loco." His current assault on prominent oppos will only increase their victimization complex and prevent them from confronting the hard issues about why they have so little appeal. It also doesn't help, of course, that the oppo coalition is extremely unwieldy ideologically, featuring everything from strong progressives to neo-fascists. Good luck agreeing on a platform and strategy!
Post a Comment