In general, I like the Obama proposals for U.S. policy toward Latin America, particularly because some are bold, going against conventional wisdom and in some cases risking political backlash. Of course, it is common after elections to find a wide gap between campaign rhetoric and policy, but we’ll cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
--He does not assert that free trade is the centerpiece of U.S. policy. Free trade is not a prerequisite of democracy, which has been a central idea for both Bush and Pres. Clinton.
--Openly says that Cuba policy is a total failure, and said so to a CANF audience. He’s already been saying this for a while, but it’s still refreshing to hear.
--Treat Venezuela as an equal, even if you disagree with the government. It is sad that this is actually bold, but it is. (However, he also says that Venezuelan elections are flawed, even though Chávez lost the last one!)
--Reform the IMF and World Bank, recognizing their failures.
--Provide a path of legalization for undocumented workers. Meanwhile, McCain is backing off this proposal to appease his base.
--Also, I love this quote: “We are funding both sides in the war on terror and supporting some of the most despotic, volatile regimes in the world.”
On the other hand, there were a few things I disagree with.
--Colombia’s right to attack its neighbors. Would we also say that Mexico has the right to attack the U.S. to fight drug trafficking?
--He talks a lot about ethanol, Brazil’s use of sugar cane and U.S. biofuel producers, but says nothing about the problems associated with using corn. The issue is more complex than he suggests.
21 comments:
"..going against conventional wisdom and in some cases risking political backlash"
Greg,
I don't know where you think Obama risks any political backlash. I see a bunch of empty rhetoric and a mountain of wasted tax dollars. Obama's going to wave his wand and "double foreign aid?" Wouldn't it be nice to at least see a breakdown on how the money is going to be spent?
He also could have shown some leadership and backed the Colombian FTA and removing the tariff on imported ethanol. In both cases, he bowed to the "special interests" he 's always pretending he will stand up against.
I think his line about Venezuela elections in that PDF is incorrect. I think he states the issue much better in the speech:
And we know that freedom across our hemisphere must go beyond elections. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. But we also know that he does not govern democratically. He talks of the people, but his actions just serve his own power. Yet the Bush Administration's blustery condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chavez have only strengthened his hand.
What "blustery condemnations?" Has Bush ever even mentioned Chavez by name?
As for strengthening Chavez, I don't see how Obama's promise to sit down for a chat with him would do anything but help him.
As for strengthening Chavez, I don't see how Obama's promise to sit down for a chat with him would do anything but help him.
It's that failure to understand strength in diplomacy that has kept the Castro's in power for half a century in Cuba.
One thing doesn't imply the other. Embargo does not equal talking to pariah nations without preconditions.
I actually find this no precondition doctrine naive and a ignorant. He quoted Nixon as an example of meeting with your enemies without preconditions!!!
The meetins with China were only possible because of the preconditions.
And even more so, he said that Roosevelt and Truman had met with president enemies (they met with Stalin when Russia was our ally!!!). That is plainly ignorant.
All he has to do is to rethink the precondition line but no, he is too proud. He is just another politician, a bit more arrogant than others, but more of the same.
I don't know where you think Obama risks any political backlash. I see a bunch of empty rhetoric...
Paul could very well be right about that. I suggested much the same, but Greg erased my post despite the fact that I said nothing outrageous.
Greg is easily taken in by the hype.
Greg erased my post despite the fact that I said nothing outrageous.
Oops, my bad. Just figured out that this is a second post about Obama. Greg didn't erase my original post, but he's certainly been taken in by the hype.
“We are funding both sides in the war on terror and supporting some of the most despotic, volatile regimes in the world.”
Kinda funny, Greg. You and Boz are never even "bold" enough to say that much with regard to Colombia.
But unfortunately, he's not referring to Colombia.
In an Obama administration, we will support Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders
Oh, well what do we have here? An endorsement of a bombing and raid that the OAS itself declared to be in violation of international law. Why am I not surprised?
Give up marihuana my friend
You are kind of losing touch with reality
Give up marihuana my friend
You are kind of losing touch with reality
Oh really? So Uribe's paramilitary friends aren't terrorists, even though we officially declare them to be so? Somehow I can't figure out how Uribe's ties to terrorism have anything to do with my occasional puffing of a joint. Please enlighten me.
you stoned now, or just sad for Marulanda. You can tell the truth. I am here to help you
"Oops, my bad. Just figured out that this is a second post about Obama. Greg didn't erase my original post, but he's certainly been taken in by the hype."
Oooh, you've learned to quote, anonymous. Looks like you're ready for the baby-step program now. Over the next couple months, I'll be giving you some lessons on how to formulate logical arguments.
"It's that failure to understand strength in diplomacy that has kept the Castro's in power for half a century in Cuba."
Boz,Castro has always been a communist and murdering psychopath. And it was Kennedy's failure at the Bay of Pigs that kept the Castro's in power for half a century. And I give you Pastrana's diplomacy vs. Uribe's pimp slap as further evidence.
Don't be mad Justin. I understand a lost such as Marulanda's is difficult to deal with, particularly if you are under the influence. You can count on me. I understand your anger. It's not your fault. You just can't help it. Look for help my friend.
"I'll be giving you some lessons on how to formulate logical arguments."
See, a good fist step would be to try some modesty. Give it a try. I am with you.
something tells me that a President Obama would be more of a free trader than boilerplate speeches to the teamsters suggest. First, it is hard for a standing president to break continuity with long-standing policy - w/support in both parties. The very debate on free trade is couched in pro-trade assumptions.
And Obama may have inadvertantly revealed a more pro-trade position in his "bitterness" remarks. He lumped "anti-trade" feelings w/positions on guns, immigration and religion.
something tells me that a President Obama would be more of a free trader than boilerplate speeches to the teamsters suggest.
Well, sure. He's pretty openly pro-"free trade" in principle. There's nothing "boilerplate" about bashing the U.S.-Colombia FTA. It's a scandalous package all the way around because (1) Colombia's labor rights record is horrible and (2) the terms of bilateral trade deals are always to the disadvantage of developing countries.
"bilateral trade deals are always to the disadvantage of developing countries" whose interests you represent above those of your own country
The [ethanol] issue is more complex than he suggests.
The greatest complexity on this issue comes in primary calendars and electoral college votes.
Iowa was pretty important for his getting this far, and he is rather counting on it again in November.
There's plenty of complexity inherent in the issue, esp. when compared to Brazil, but as long as he goes for the "corn vote" then U.S. policy regarding ethanol will be messed up.
Post a Comment