Some Congressional Republicans have proposed a resolution to put Venezuela on the state sponsor of terrorism list. What we should note, however, is that these particular Republicans are the usual suspects of anti-Castro policy (e.g. Connie Mack and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen). As a result, this doesn’t tell us much about how Congress as a whole will respond.
What virtually no one seems to be discussing is the cost that will be borne by U.S. consumers at a time of recession and in an election year if trade with Venezuela is severely restricted. The average person is only vaguely interested in Hugo Chávez, but is extremely interested in the cost of gas and food. So who will they blame?
Here is the text of the resolution.
12 comments:
Hi Professor Weeks,
provocative website. thank you.
I'm getting a little weary of pragmatic politics, especially on hearing the news of Tibet.
I'm also tired of the U.S. picking on little nations, which, since by definition they make no impact on our GDP, we don't let them off the hook. e.g., Cuba.
IF the evidence against Venezuela is creditable then proceed, scrap the list, or rewrite the criteria.
I'm guessing that the evidence would not stand up to scrutiny.
If I understand correctly, you're saying that the impact on the U.S. economy is not a legitimate criterion for determining the terrorist list. Either a state is or isn't supporting terrorism.
Fair criticism. At this point, I see these lists as so politicized that it seems to make more sense to point out the probable practical (and counterproductive) outcomes of putting countries on them.
I see these lists as so politicized that it seems to make more sense to point out the probable practical (and counterproductive) outcomes of putting countries on them.
In other words, Greg prefers not to point out the ethical calamity of such U.S. campaigns of demonization because that wouldn't resonate with the parochial nationalists masquerading as "liberal internationalists" in his discipline. Like most academics, Greg is consensus-crazed, so he'll go only so far as to say what he thinks might resonate with a critical mass in his discipline.
consensus-crazed? I thought that the OAS (Multinational) work on the Equador crisis gave a gravity and stability that cowboy cronism will never achieve.
but then again, there's not much money in global stability, is there?
Professor Weeks,
Careful with those rhetorical tactics. Obama change is on the horizon ;)
Seriously, the SDN and the list of nations sponsoring terrorism are never not going to be political.
but we need to be rigorous with the evidence. that's the lesson I've learned from the Bush debacle.
My gut tells me that the laptop is a smokescreen for the fact that the Colombians murdered FARC in their sleep, which once again raises serious questions about the treatment of prisoners.
I'm still trying to figure out what terrorist organization North Korea is sponsoring.
Isn't the US still officially at war with N. Korea?
The US has been to war with or listed every country BUT the ones whose citizens flew those planes into the WTC.
That list is worthless.
In the text of resolution they talk about the importance of passing the Free Trade Agreement.
Is there any specific reasoning why passing the free trade agreement would enhance our security?
consensus-crazed? I thought that the OAS (Multinational) work on the Equador crisis gave a gravity and stability that cowboy cronism will never achieve.
That's a separate (and important) point. When I say that Greg and most other U.S. academics are "consensus-crazed," I'm not talking about their view of the positions that predominate within international organizations like the OAS. If U.S. academics were "consensus-crazed" in the sense of supporting the positions that predominate within the OAS, they would unequivocally reject Alvaro Uribe's violation of international law in Ecuador (just as the OAS did). But no, U.S. academics tend to be more parochial than that (and largely unconcerned with international law). They pick up their own countries' newspapers and read about what an evil-doer big bad Hugo is; they then turn the whole story around as if Chavez were the region pariah in this case (just as Greg and Steven have done). The story suddenly becomes one of Chavez insulting that poor poor U.S. ally Uribe (who just so happens to be an extremely violent thug, but paroquial American academics don't read about that in their country's newspapers).
When I say that many U.S. political scientists are consensus-crazed, what I mean is that they care a great deal about what their academic colleagues think of their views. The discipline's incentive structure is set up in such a way that controversial world views are tacitly discouraged. That's why Greg rarely says anything that breaks from scholarly convention.
"When I say that many U.S. political scientists are consensus-crazed, what I mean is that they care a great deal about what their academic colleagues think of their views."
Unlike Justin the maverick Dorm Room Revolutionary!! He sits there in his dorm waving his fist at all the cowardly "consensus crazed" academics, and "paroquial minions of the empire," and also the a-hole junior oligarchs who piss all over the seats in the dorm's public restrooms.
I think the argument is pretty simple. With oil at $110 per barrel, we will see pigs fly before we see Venezuela on the terrorism list. This is just saber-rattling by the Bush Administration. If they actually put Venezuela on the list, the price of oil will skyrocket even further. No US president will willingly make that happen. Chavez also knows this, which is why he can get away with his arms length transactions with the FARC.
Chavez also knows this, which is why he can get away with his arms length transactions with the FARC.
There's been zilch for evidence of "transactions." Zilch.
"There's been zilch for evidence of "transactions." Zilch."
Posting anonymously on this blog, too, Justin?
Some of the loudest proponents of this measure are from Florida. But, arguably there are even stronger pressures against coming from the state. That includes key constituencies of elected officials.
i. Commercially this would be a disaster, due to billions of dollars in exports that leave Florida for Venezuela.
ii. Banks, investment firms, realtors, in South Florida, hard hit by the economy are dead set against restrictions that affect Venezuelans from buying goods, depositing money in US banks, investing in Florida real estate or corporations.
Venezuelans are the single largest group of purchasors of investment real estate in Miami. Arguably, without this money, the real estate crisis would be worse.
iii. Key opinion makers in South Florida have publically called for the administration to not go through with this. That includes some of the most known anti-Chavista Venezuelan newspapers. And it also includes people like Oppenheimer and some Cuban-American writers with credibility in the community.
On the one hand, the economic interests of exporters, banks, realtors with ties to the local and national republican parties will make this a tough sell.
Individually, key congresspeople like the Diaz-Ballart
brothers and Ros-Lehtinen, are hearing concerns of business intersts in their districts. And the credible voices arguing against "classification" seem to be drowning out those in favor in local media.
Post a Comment