The American Leopard
Published in Bolpress
(Bolivia) on 13 August 2009
by Ernesto Tamara (link to original)
Every day, more people begin to doubt that Barack Obama can actually manage foreign policy and American defense. It is also evident that this is causing him to really push for the internal changes he promised as part of his campaign.
A short time ago, while discussing presidential history with a friend, my friend claimed that the United States has been able to maintain the luxury of four year presidential terms because, in reality, the president doesn’t govern, corporations do; in reality, they form a government with no term limits. It seems that Barack Obama is proving my friend correct.
On many fronts, the current American president had to neglect the promotion of some of the changes he previously announced. On others, for example, reform of the health care system, he has had to negotiate his proposals, at a cost that is not yet known. This week at the NAFTA Summit, he admitted he was not able to keep his promise to modify the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico as per the demands of his southern neighbor.
As for defense, he is hardly working to create a viable program for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He is increasing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and has continued along the same line as his predecessor in regards to pressuring Iran about its nuclear program.
At the Summit of the Americas, which took place this past April in Trinidad and Tobago, the leader announced a new American policy toward Latin America, to be based on dialogue and cooperation.
The reality is that these promises are not being kept. In his announcement regarding changes in the relationship with Cuba, the only evident progress is that a provocative sign promoting U.S. interests in Havana, which no one could read anyway, has been turned off. He announced that travel restrictions for Cuban Americans to the island would be reduced and that remittances could be sent, but these promises have not yet become realities either. Moreover, Obama has not even mentioned the modification of economic sanctions.
On the topic of the coup of state in Honduras, Washington has maintained an ambivalent policy. On one hand, it recognizes that the act is unconstitutional but, on the other, it has encouraged negotiations with supporters of the coup. This week, Obama challenged those that demand his government make more of a commitment to replace Zelaya. “The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say we're always intervening and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can't have it both ways,” he said, intending to confound critics. “If these critics think that it's appropriate for us to suddenly act in ways that, in every other context, they consider inappropriate, then I think what that indicates is that maybe there's some hypocrisy involved in their... approach to U.S.-Latin American relations,” Obama added.
Sadly, in other contexts, his government continues to act differently. This should not stop him from demonstrating a commitment to legality in Honduras in a more evident manner. Hypocrisy, to say the least, has been part of his policy for negotiations with supporters of the coup since the expulsion of the constitutionally elected president more than a month ago. This policy will allow for the success of the coup and the maintenance of U.S. military bases in Honduras.
No one has recommended that the U.S. invade Honduras in order to restore Zelaya to office, as was done in Granada in 1983, Panama in 1989 and Haiti in 2004, for example. It has only been suggested that the administration be more clear in its rejection of the coup. Even though they say they do not support anyone else and that they back Zelaya, they continue negotiating with Micheletti. It has also been suggested that they convinced the military architects of the coup, trained at the U.S.-run School of the Americas, that they have no future as long as they continue ignoring the law.
Increasing American military presence in Colombia is also hypocritical. Denying the use of Colombian military bases while increasing soldiers and strategists might be an element of aggression and pressure on other countries in the region. Drug traffickers may not feel threatened by the American military. On the contrary, if they review the situation in Afghanistan, they will see that drug production and trafficking has increased since the American invasion.
Additionally, it must be pointed out that congressmen from Obama's own party have refused to support the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia due to human rights violations in the country, especially by union leaders. Backing Uribe’s government under these circumstances runs contrary to the U.S.'s proclaimed respect for human rights.
It is also hypocritical to deny that the export of cocaine has continued to increase in direct proportion to the human rights violations by the Colombian military since the execution of Plan Colombia, which Obama has expanded along with military bases. It is an insult to intelligence to claim that the goal of using the military bases is to combat drug trafficking. Plan Colombia has the same goal and has not been effective. The base that the U.S. has in Manta, Ecuador, hasn't produced the desired results, either. The United States does nothing internally to control the consumption of drugs nor pursue domestic money launderers and even less to impede the export of the chemicals necessary for cocaine manufacturing.
Obama assured us, "let’s be clear; we have had a security agreement with Colombia for many years now. We have updated it." That is to say, he recognizes his policy as a continuation of the previous government policies; there is no change in support of the military or, in fact, to the Colombian paramilitary.
Recapping, Obama should remember that he is leading a country, or at least believes he is leading one, and he does not have the moral high ground to speak about political hypocrisy. He should know that every objective he sets out to achieve is preceded by this pre-existing condition and that, in Latin America, these objectives are precisely about intervention, not in defense of democracy and social justice.
A short time ago, while discussing presidential history with a friend, my friend claimed that the United States has been able to maintain the luxury of four year presidential terms because, in reality, the president doesn’t govern, corporations do; in reality, they form a government with no term limits. It seems that Barack Obama is proving my friend correct.
On many fronts, the current American president had to neglect the promotion of some of the changes he previously announced. On others, for example, reform of the health care system, he has had to negotiate his proposals, at a cost that is not yet known. This week at the NAFTA Summit, he admitted he was not able to keep his promise to modify the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico as per the demands of his southern neighbor.
As for defense, he is hardly working to create a viable program for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He is increasing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and has continued along the same line as his predecessor in regards to pressuring Iran about its nuclear program.
At the Summit of the Americas, which took place this past April in Trinidad and Tobago, the leader announced a new American policy toward Latin America, to be based on dialogue and cooperation.
The reality is that these promises are not being kept. In his announcement regarding changes in the relationship with Cuba, the only evident progress is that a provocative sign promoting U.S. interests in Havana, which no one could read anyway, has been turned off. He announced that travel restrictions for Cuban Americans to the island would be reduced and that remittances could be sent, but these promises have not yet become realities either. Moreover, Obama has not even mentioned the modification of economic sanctions.
On the topic of the coup of state in Honduras, Washington has maintained an ambivalent policy. On one hand, it recognizes that the act is unconstitutional but, on the other, it has encouraged negotiations with supporters of the coup. This week, Obama challenged those that demand his government make more of a commitment to replace Zelaya. “The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say we're always intervening and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can't have it both ways,” he said, intending to confound critics. “If these critics think that it's appropriate for us to suddenly act in ways that, in every other context, they consider inappropriate, then I think what that indicates is that maybe there's some hypocrisy involved in their... approach to U.S.-Latin American relations,” Obama added.
Sadly, in other contexts, his government continues to act differently. This should not stop him from demonstrating a commitment to legality in Honduras in a more evident manner. Hypocrisy, to say the least, has been part of his policy for negotiations with supporters of the coup since the expulsion of the constitutionally elected president more than a month ago. This policy will allow for the success of the coup and the maintenance of U.S. military bases in Honduras.
No one has recommended that the U.S. invade Honduras in order to restore Zelaya to office, as was done in Granada in 1983, Panama in 1989 and Haiti in 2004, for example. It has only been suggested that the administration be more clear in its rejection of the coup. Even though they say they do not support anyone else and that they back Zelaya, they continue negotiating with Micheletti. It has also been suggested that they convinced the military architects of the coup, trained at the U.S.-run School of the Americas, that they have no future as long as they continue ignoring the law.
Increasing American military presence in Colombia is also hypocritical. Denying the use of Colombian military bases while increasing soldiers and strategists might be an element of aggression and pressure on other countries in the region. Drug traffickers may not feel threatened by the American military. On the contrary, if they review the situation in Afghanistan, they will see that drug production and trafficking has increased since the American invasion.
Additionally, it must be pointed out that congressmen from Obama's own party have refused to support the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia due to human rights violations in the country, especially by union leaders. Backing Uribe’s government under these circumstances runs contrary to the U.S.'s proclaimed respect for human rights.
It is also hypocritical to deny that the export of cocaine has continued to increase in direct proportion to the human rights violations by the Colombian military since the execution of Plan Colombia, which Obama has expanded along with military bases. It is an insult to intelligence to claim that the goal of using the military bases is to combat drug trafficking. Plan Colombia has the same goal and has not been effective. The base that the U.S. has in Manta, Ecuador, hasn't produced the desired results, either. The United States does nothing internally to control the consumption of drugs nor pursue domestic money launderers and even less to impede the export of the chemicals necessary for cocaine manufacturing.
Obama assured us, "let’s be clear; we have had a security agreement with Colombia for many years now. We have updated it." That is to say, he recognizes his policy as a continuation of the previous government policies; there is no change in support of the military or, in fact, to the Colombian paramilitary.
Recapping, Obama should remember that he is leading a country, or at least believes he is leading one, and he does not have the moral high ground to speak about political hypocrisy. He should know that every objective he sets out to achieve is preceded by this pre-existing condition and that, in Latin America, these objectives are precisely about intervention, not in defense of democracy and social justice.
Next article![]( "The Over-Politicized U.S. Supreme Court")
