America’s troubles on the world stage were the result of being disliked – disliked because George W. Bush was such a terrible president. That’s what we were told. So why hasn’t a year of Barack Obama’s enlightened foreign policy leadership, promised as the antidote to Bush’s cowboy ineptitude, made the likes of Hugo Chavez less prone to delusional sabre rattling?
President Hugo Chavez ordered Venezuela’s military on Sunday to prepare for a possible armed conflict with Colombia, saying the country’s soldiers should be ready if the United States attempts to provoke a war between the South American neighbors.
“The best way to avoid war is preparing for it,” Chavez told military officers standing at attention during his weekly television and radio program.
Repeating an often-used military adage, he added, “If you want peace, prepare for war.”
Chavez told his supporters that President Barack Obama holds sway over Colombia’s government, and he cautioned the U.S. leader against using his allies in Bogota to mount a military offensive against Venezuela.
“Don’t make a mistake, Mr. Obama, by ordering an attack against Venezuela by way of Colombia,” he said.
It turns out that what we actually do is of little relevance to “world leaders” like this. We are a scapegoat. We are The Other upon which failing socialist dictators can direct the ire of the people, in hopes that they might be distracted their hungry bellies and diminishing freedoms – basically, from the inevitable mess created by a discredited ideology. Instead of operating under the delusion that Chavez is reacting to objective reality, we must realize that he will say things like this no matter what we do, nor who is president.
Does this mean we should just go around not caring who we cross or piss off? Of course not. The point is that we should focus on our national interest and not worry so much about why we are demonized, as if there were some way it could be stopped. So long as failing dictators need an enemy to rally against, we will be disliked. It’s a constant of international affairs, and therefore ought to be completely irrelevant to crafting policy.
Comments
Print This Post
A common complaint in 2004 was how the damn Bush administration had just gone off and pissed off all our allies. Well, now we have the example of the esteemed co-president and four star general Mrs. Pelosi to follow. First, we learn how to appease our enemies. Now, she is teaching us that the proper way to keep allies close it to attack them and abandon them:
Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe returned to Bogota this week in a state of shock. His three-day visit to Capitol Hill in Washington to win over Democrats in Congress was described by one American supporter as “catastrophic.” Colombian sources said Uribe was stunned by the ferocity of his Democratic opponents, and Vice President Francisco Santos publicly talked about cutting U.S.-Colombian ties.
Uribe got nothing from his meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. Military aid remains stalled, overall assistance is reduced, and the vital U.S.-Colombian trade bill looks dead. The first Colombian president to crack down on his country’s corrupt army officer hierarchy, and to assault both right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerrillas, last week confronted Democrats wedded to out-of-date claims of civil rights abuses and to rigidly protectionist dogma.
This is remarkable U.S. treatment for a rare friend on the South American continent, where Venezuela’s leftist dictator Hugo Chavez can only exult in Uribe’s embarrassment as he builds an anti-American bloc of nations. A former congressional staffer, who in 1999 helped author Plan Colombia against narco-guerrillas, told me: “President Uribe may be the odd man out, and that’s no way to treat our best ally in South America.
More Democratic rhetoric shown to be nothing more than bull.
Comments Print This Post
…unless they aren’t potential voters.
MEDELLIN, Colombia — At the CI Jeans factory, where 3,900 people make their livings turning bolts of denim into trousers bound for the United States, the American market — land of the customer — appears to be slipping away.
. . .Yesterday, the Bush administration signed the proposed deal, but leading Democrats promptly attacked it, underscoring growing doubts in Washington that Congress will approve the pact. Here in Colombia and next door in Peru, which awaits congressional approval for its own trade treaty, anxiety runs high.
. . .Addressing fears that too many jobs are being sacrificed at home, the new Democratic leadership wants to slow the worldwide effort, which the United States has led since 1947, to lower import tariffs that hinder trade.
The fortunes of Colombia and Peru — home to more than 72 million people — may hang in the balance. So, too, might the nature of American engagement with Latin America, regional experts say. The rejection of trade pacts with these countries would humiliate their leaders at a time when they stand as bulwarks against the anti-American populism pressed by Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez.
We can’t tarrif away the competition.
The resurgence of American populism, particularly that of trade protectionism, is disturbing. What’s worse, it’s manifesting itself on both sides of the political spectrum. At the heart of the matter is whether we believe trade and economic cooperation is good, or whether we believe that it’s somehow dirty or harmful. Those on the left, who are inclined toward socialism or otherwise antagonistic towards free markets, are going to be natural adversaries to free trade, and often trot out globalization as their all-purpose boogeyman.
Many on the right are now turning towards protectionism as well. Upset over our open borders, many are being swayed by the Buchananite protectionists, who at least offer serious border control. But we can’t hide from the global economy. We can’t tariff away the competition. Nor should we want to.
The left demands we spend billions on foreign aid to third world countries – which accomplishes nothing but the perpetuation of dependence – yet they work tirelessly to prevent that which could actually help both them and us, free trade.
Not convinced? Milton Friedman made the case for free trade better than I can. Spreading capitalism also has the very nice side effect of promoting peace. On a side note, I suspect that if you tried telling a leftist that globalization will contribute to world peace his head would simply explode.
Comments Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science and work in public policy, but please don't hold that against me.
