The Bangkok Post
Sunday September 14, 2008
EDITORIAL
The squabbling between the United States and some traditional allies to the south _ Bolivia , Venezuela and now Honduras _ is escalating to the point that it threatens to makes the row between Thailand and Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple seem reasonable by comparison.
There have of course been tensions and heated words between Washington and Caracas for a long time, but the expulsion of the US ambassador to Bolivia on Thursday, followed by Venezuela's expulsion of its US ambassador on Friday, along with a volley of expletives let loose by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and apparently aimed at Americans in general, marks a new low for the US in its relations with a part of the world it has long considered its ''backyard'' and under its protection.
This relationship was first formalised in 1823 when then US President James Madison's warned European powers to stay out of South America in what has come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine.
Not long after Chavez received ovations from a crowd of thousands in Caracas on Friday when he used a profanity to describe ''yankees'', who he then told to ''go to hell 100 times'', the Central American nation of Honduras announced that it will hold off on the accreditation of a new US ambassador in solidarity with Venezuela and Bolivia. Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said his country was not not breaking relations with the United States.
In reaction to all this the US figuratively expelled the ambassadors from Venezuela and Bolivia, who had already been recalled, and characterised the two country leaders as weak and desperate.
The troubles began when Bolivian President Evo Morales accused US envoy Phillip Goldberg of encouraging a violent protest in eastern Bolivia by groups demanding the government grant them a larger share of the region's gas export revenues. At this point, no independent corroboration has emerged to support Morales' claims, and US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack should be believed when he says the allegations are false unless such evidence surfaces. Clearly the burden of proof is on Morales to present evidence for his claims, since it is impossible to prove a negative _ that the US has not supported the unrest. This appears to be a case of Morales pointing to an all-too-convenient scapegoat for his troubles instead of taking them head on.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's knee-jerk reaction in support of Morales is predictable as well.
That said, it cannot be denied that the US has a long history of meddling in the affairs of South and Central American countries, going back to the 1890s. During the Cold War, under the guise of upholding democracy in the face of spreading global communism, the US aided a number of ruthless and decidedly undemocratic regimes and backed several successful coup d'etats.
The US has also been naive in its arguments against the wave of left-leaning leaders emerging in South America, Chavez in particular. Characterising him as a fanatic rabble rouser might play well to US audiences, but while not wholly inaccurate, it neglects the fact that Chavez has done a lot for the poor in Venezuela, chiefly by allowing them to benefit directly from the country's oil wealth through a variety of social programmes.
What is also true is that the US has over a very long time contributed vast amounts of aid to South and Central America in many areas, including health, education, and legitimate democracy-building endeavours. What's more, the US is a major trading partner for most all of these nations. For these reasons it is unlikely that the row will spread much further.
Tensions with Venezuela will almost surely remain high, however. Even before the diplomatic removals they were simmering with the news that Russia had sent two strategic bombers to Venezuela for military exercises. As well, the US is accusing officials high up in the Chavez government of arming and funding the Colombian rebel group FARC ''even as it terrorised and kidnapped innocents".
The situation with Bolivia will remain very volatile as well.Washington had hoped to build a good relationship with Morales despite his leftist politics, and this is still possible.
It is clear that in order to do this the US must resist the old temptation to look on South and Central America as being under its dominion. The next US president would do well to focus more attention than his predecessor on building up mutually beneficial relations in the region.
Sunday September 14, 2008
EDITORIAL
The squabbling between the United States and some traditional allies to the south _ Bolivia , Venezuela and now Honduras _ is escalating to the point that it threatens to makes the row between Thailand and Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple seem reasonable by comparison.
There have of course been tensions and heated words between Washington and Caracas for a long time, but the expulsion of the US ambassador to Bolivia on Thursday, followed by Venezuela's expulsion of its US ambassador on Friday, along with a volley of expletives let loose by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and apparently aimed at Americans in general, marks a new low for the US in its relations with a part of the world it has long considered its ''backyard'' and under its protection.
This relationship was first formalised in 1823 when then US President James Madison's warned European powers to stay out of South America in what has come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine.
Not long after Chavez received ovations from a crowd of thousands in Caracas on Friday when he used a profanity to describe ''yankees'', who he then told to ''go to hell 100 times'', the Central American nation of Honduras announced that it will hold off on the accreditation of a new US ambassador in solidarity with Venezuela and Bolivia. Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said his country was not not breaking relations with the United States.
In reaction to all this the US figuratively expelled the ambassadors from Venezuela and Bolivia, who had already been recalled, and characterised the two country leaders as weak and desperate.
The troubles began when Bolivian President Evo Morales accused US envoy Phillip Goldberg of encouraging a violent protest in eastern Bolivia by groups demanding the government grant them a larger share of the region's gas export revenues. At this point, no independent corroboration has emerged to support Morales' claims, and US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack should be believed when he says the allegations are false unless such evidence surfaces. Clearly the burden of proof is on Morales to present evidence for his claims, since it is impossible to prove a negative _ that the US has not supported the unrest. This appears to be a case of Morales pointing to an all-too-convenient scapegoat for his troubles instead of taking them head on.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's knee-jerk reaction in support of Morales is predictable as well.
That said, it cannot be denied that the US has a long history of meddling in the affairs of South and Central American countries, going back to the 1890s. During the Cold War, under the guise of upholding democracy in the face of spreading global communism, the US aided a number of ruthless and decidedly undemocratic regimes and backed several successful coup d'etats.
The US has also been naive in its arguments against the wave of left-leaning leaders emerging in South America, Chavez in particular. Characterising him as a fanatic rabble rouser might play well to US audiences, but while not wholly inaccurate, it neglects the fact that Chavez has done a lot for the poor in Venezuela, chiefly by allowing them to benefit directly from the country's oil wealth through a variety of social programmes.
What is also true is that the US has over a very long time contributed vast amounts of aid to South and Central America in many areas, including health, education, and legitimate democracy-building endeavours. What's more, the US is a major trading partner for most all of these nations. For these reasons it is unlikely that the row will spread much further.
Tensions with Venezuela will almost surely remain high, however. Even before the diplomatic removals they were simmering with the news that Russia had sent two strategic bombers to Venezuela for military exercises. As well, the US is accusing officials high up in the Chavez government of arming and funding the Colombian rebel group FARC ''even as it terrorised and kidnapped innocents".
The situation with Bolivia will remain very volatile as well.Washington had hoped to build a good relationship with Morales despite his leftist politics, and this is still possible.
It is clear that in order to do this the US must resist the old temptation to look on South and Central America as being under its dominion. The next US president would do well to focus more attention than his predecessor on building up mutually beneficial relations in the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment