Ever wonder why the United States in general and President Bush in particular are so unpopular in Latin America? It has to do with hypocrisy inherent in American foreign policy for decades, a hypocrisy ratched up to the nth level under the current regime in Washington.
Most Americans say they support freedom and liberty (or democracy and human rights, depending on your political persuasion). And for the most part, I think most Americans do. The mistake many Americans make is that they assume their government thinks the same way.
Throughout the Cold War, American governments claimed to act on behalf of the 'free world,' but regularly supported regimes that were not only unfree, but downright brutal and repressive. Chile, Argentina, Panama, Brazil, apartheid South Africa, Morocco, Saudi Arabia; the full list is several times longer. The US government would support any tinpot dictator or outright bloodthirsty thug so long as he called himself anti-communist.
It's hard for people to take you seriously about freedom and liberty when you're propping up murderous regimes like those of Liberia's Samuel Doe or Chile's Augusto Pinochet. If Fidel Castro was demonized simply because he stole American-owned property in Cuba, then how could Washington justify supporting an outright genocidal regime in Guatemala or death squads in El Salvador?
In fact, this chasm between self-righteous proclamations and nefarious actions is the primary source of anti-Americanism not just in Latin America but worldwide. Unfortunately, many people around the world mistakenly assume that because the US government has traditionally filled with hypocrites who enable mass murderers, then they must do so with the conscious support of most of the American people. Anti-Americanism develops because of the unconscionable policies of our government but it's the American people who suffer by expressions of that sentiment like 9/11.
Yesterday, a Texas judge blocked the extradition of a terrorist suspect to Venezuela. The judge blocked the extradition under the pretext that the suspect might be tortured if sent to the South American country.
It's important to remember that judges are supposed to be independent of the government and government pressure, contrary to what some would like. Though it is ironic that a judge in the second most death penalty giddy jurisdiction in the world is concerned about government mistreating prisoners.
But if you're trying to get the 'be tough against terrorism' message across if you're harboring suspected terrorists yourself.
"It's bad enough when the world knows that we're rendering [kidnapping and shipping] suspected Islamic terrorists to countries that routinely use terror," said one State Department official. "But here we have someone who we know is a terrorist, and it's clear that we're actively protecting him from facing justice. We have zero credibility."
The crux of the matter is that relations are hostile between the Bush administration and Venezuela's de facto dictator Hugo Chavez. Chavez is an old school left-wing self-styled revolutionary and the Bush administration is made up of right-wingers that many would characterize as reactionary. It's hardly surprising that they aren't on each other's Christmas card list.
So it's not surprising that the Bush administration hasn't gone to bat to push for the extradition of this suspected terrorist. (Of course, if he were thought to be al-Qaeda, they'd just drop the 'suspected' pretense when referring to him)
This case is simply one of whether to extradite a man already living in the US. Earlier this year, the CIA went to Italy, kidnapped suspected al-Qaeda members and shipped them off to Egypt. Egypt is another country that is widely believed to practice torture, but Egypt's dictator is an American ally.
(The kidnappings were widely condemned not only for being illegal but for damaging the national security of both the US and Italy.)
Should the US extradite suspects to countries that practice torture? That's a fair question. But it's one that should have a universal answer. Is it an expression of American values to be complicit in torture so long as it's done by so-called friendly regimes? If we, as a people, answer yes, then we, as a people, must accept the inevitable dangerous consequences.
Update: Events in Nicaragua add to the hypocrisy charge. The left-wing opposition is trying to impeach the conservative president Enrique Bolanos. Impeachment is a procedure provided for in Nicaraguan law. It doesn't happen very often, but it's not unprecedented and certainly within the framework of constitutional order in democratic countries.
If the Bush administration had any clue about psychology, diplomacy and image abroad, it would've reacted by calling the attempt unwise or by otherwise backing President Bolanos or calling him a wonderful leader. And leaving it at that. Instead, the assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere referred to impeachment attempts as a 'judicial mugging.'
I seem to remember a certain North American country where the president was impeached, but not removed, in the late 1990s. Many claimed it was a terrible idea but no reasonable person equated it to a coup.
Then again, President Bolanos' ambassador to the US described the opposition's electoral victory in legislative elections as a kidnapping so perhaps the regime's understanding of democratic rules isn't fully developed yet. Bolanos' allies in Washington should know better, especially since many of them were the ones who led the afforementioned impeachment of President Clinton. But we know they have short memories.
2nd update: Unfortunately, even The Washington Post has bought into the coup myth
No comments:
Post a Comment