Piñera and platitudes
Only time will tell how Sebastián Piñera will differ from Concertación presidents in terms of dealing with Venezuela and Cuba. Andres Oppenheimer interviewed him, quotes very bland platitudes, and takes these vague pronouncements to mean Piñera will "push" Venezuela when in fact he never says anything remotely like that. Actually, Piñera makes a huge point about non-interference.
I can have my opinion, but I won't interfere with other countries' internal affairs. But I will always defend, very forcefully, the values of democracy, freedoms and human rights.
What does that mean? Anything you want.
31 comments:
Actually, he's pretty clear. Of course, he uses the language of politicians everywhere but he said clearly Cuba is not a democracy and that if he went to Cuba he'd want to meet with dissidents. That right there is a huge improvement over Bachelet (and most of Latin America today).
The undemocratic latin american left will not be happy with Piñera. With luck he will soon be joined by similar politicians in Brazil and Argentina (one can dream!).
What is "undemocratic" about the left in power in Brazil?
Greg--I don't think your analysis of the quote is correct. After the ambiguous quote you cite in the post, Oppenheimer asks, "'When forced to choose between noninterference and the collective defense of democracy, where will you stand?' I asked.
• Piñera: `Definitely, I will always be on the side of the defense of democracy and human rights...'"
You say this is non-news (having it both ways) and seem to assume that noninterference will be the guiding future principle. In contrast, if Pinera can be taken at his word, I think it is clear that he will lean more in the direction of democratic interference in the affairs of Cuba and Venezuela.
Randy-- The most undemocratic aspect of Lula's government is his foreign policy of kow-towing to dictators. The lack of support for dissidents in Cuba, his desire for good relations with Teheran and his demonization of the Honduran government all show that internal Brazilian needs guide his policies. National, business and party concerns trump working as a region to set a workable standard for human rights. Without Brazil's participation, this is a very difficult goal. Likewise, coming from someone who understands the importance of foreign pressure when you are a victim of domestic repression, this is just plain sad.
if Pinera can be taken at his word, I think it is clear that he will lean more in the direction of democratic interference in the affairs of Cuba and Venezuela.
And what would the nature of this interference be? I've yet to see anything "democratic" about U.S. interference in the affairs of Cuba, Bolivia, or Venezuela.
It's one thing to dislike a country's political system. It's quite another thing to simply assume that outside interference in that country's political system will be "democratic." Given the historical record, I don't think that's a particularly wise assumption.
I mean, come on. Are you really gonna try to tell us that some billionaire with Pinochet apologists all around him is poised to become the new paragon of "democracy" promotion?
Of course we could test your theory with a free and open election, but Raul wouldn't want to risk the sure result. Gimme a break, comrade.
Notice, anonymous, that you don't even pretend to actually address my points. Calling somebody "comrade" is a pretty weak excuse for an argument.
Nice try. You insult a democratically elected leader by saying he is surrounded by Pinochet apologists while defending Castro who is surrounded by Stalin apologists. Let's see, who is more bereft of democratic standing? Pinera or Castro? If it walks like a duck...
You insult a democratically elected leader by saying he is surrounded by Pinochet apologists while defending Castro who is surrounded by Stalin apologists.
Uh, actually, I didn't say a word about Castro. You can go back and look. You're changing the subject and altering what I wrote so as to continue avoiding my points. I'm waiting to see if you can squarely address one point that I actually made. I probably shouldn't hold my breath, though.
The most undemocratic aspect of Lula's government is his foreign policy of kow-towing to dictators.
By that same standard, then, Ronald Reagan was undemocratic by kowtowing to the pre-Falklands War Argentinean Junta, Pinochet, Rios Montt in Guatemala, his ARENA buddies in El Salvador, his utter blindness to the terror unleashed on East Timor by the Indonesian military and his utter fecklessness on dealing with the racist apartheid government of South Africa.
By that same standard, then, Ronald Reagan was undemocratic by kowtowing to the pre-Falklands War Argentinean Junta, Pinochet, Rios Montt in Guatemala, his ARENA buddies in El Salvador, his utter blindness to the terror unleashed on East Timor by the Indonesian military and his utter fecklessness on dealing with the racist apartheid government of South Africa.
I think one could go further still. All U.S. Administrations have effectively kow-towed to the authoritarian governments of China and Saudi Arabia for decades. Anonymous is engaging in a basic fallacy here. To call Lula's government undemocratic on account of Brazil’s cordial relations with non-democracies is no more valid than to argue that the United States is becoming a monarchy on account of its strategic relationship with the Saudi royal family.
“By that same standard, then, Ronald Reagan was undemocratic by kowtowing to the pre-Falklands War Argentinean Junta, Pinochet, Rios Montt in Guatemala, his ARENA buddies in El Salvador…”
Randy, I did not argue Lula was undemocratic. What I argued was that his foreign policy does not support the implementation of the OAS Charter and regional standards for democracy and human rights. By putting primacy on intervention in Honduras while giving Cuba a pass, while proclaiming non-intervention as a principle for leftist transgressors but moral revulsion at the right, just makes it harder for Latin America to work together in this terrain. As for Reagan, I agree with you. His foreign policy in Latin America was morally bankrupt and counterproductive.
"To call Lula's government undemocratic on account of Brazil’s cordial relations with non-democracies is no more valid than to argue that the United States is becoming a monarchy on account of its strategic relationship with the Saudi royal family."
Bad analogy. I just said that Lula’s government puts its economic and national interests above a common OAS policy for democracy and human rights. Every country does the same thing in different situations. No country can achieve perfect consistency nor some kind of ideal. The nature of foreign policy is filled with compromises and inconsistencies. My point, professor, has nothing to do with whether the domestic institutions of either the US or Brazil will be transformed by their undemocratic allies. This is typical of your willful misreading of anyone who dares to disagree with you. It must really suck to be a student in your classes.
No, I'm afraid there was no "willful misreading" here. Here's what you wrote:
The most undemocratic aspect of Lula's government is his foreign policy of kow-towing to dictators.
Do you refer to the United States' strategic partnerships with the Saudi royal family or the Chinese as an "undemocratic aspect of the U.S. government"? No, you don't. The central problem with your whole analysis is that you have no consistent set of standards.
Score: Justin 3, Anonymous 0
I would also add that the term "democracy" is very amorphus and fungible. How 'democratic' are nations that have huge social inequality, wage-slavery, people dying for lack of affordable health care, vast differences in access to quality education, criminal justice systems that are themselves racist, classist, and criminal....
The above just touches the surface, I could go on with this vain of argument at some lenght.
What about US invasions and military terror that murders tens of thousands--for instance in Iraq and Afghanistan (the two more recent examples of imperial terror).
Interesting how capitalist media and intellectuals twist notions like 'democracy'--when, in fact, powerful interests support ubiquitous propaganda in order to mask the reality that there is very little citizen involvement in most of the important decisions that impact all of our lives.
We are allowed (if don't have felony convictions) to vote for major parties that are controlled by corporations and the wealthy. This is the extent of our democratic horizons.
People like Anonymous really support levels and dynamics of inequality that make for a reality that is the diametric opposite of 'democracy'.
Randy, I did not argue Lula was undemocratic.
You juxtaposed the following statements:
The undemocratic latin american left will not be happy with Piñera. With luck he will soon be joined by similar politicians in Brazil and Argentina
It's not unreasonable to infer from that statement you regard the current left leadership in brazil as undemocratic.
"Do you refer to the United States' strategic partnerships with the Saudi royal family or the Chinese as an "undemocratic aspect of the U.S. government"? No, you don't. The central problem with your whole analysis is that you have no consistent set of standards."
Justin-- I just criticized Reagan's policies as just that. Can you read? I do criticize the US govt. when it kow tows to the two countries you mention and more.
Randy--the quote you attribute to me is not mine. I can see the reason for the confusion.
I would also add that the term "democracy" is very amorphus and fungible. How 'democratic' are nations that have huge social inequality, wage-slavery, people dying for lack of affordable health care, vast differences in access to quality education, criminal justice systems that are themselves racist, classist, and criminal....
I agree that we also need to open up the discussion about the meaning of democracy.
Justin-- I just criticized Reagan's policies as just that. Can you read? I do criticize the US govt. when it kow tows to the two countries you mention and more.
First off, it's not just a matter of Reagan's policies. Nor is it a matter of whether you merely "criticize" such U.S. policies (which I doubt). Various U.S. Administrations --both Democratic and Republican-- have presided over strategic partnerships with authoritarian governments. But you clearly do not describe all such policies as an "undemocratic aspect" of all such U.S. Administrations. You reserve any such explicit description for those who defy the prerogatives of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. And that's the problem. Your righteous indignation is selective and thus not really righteous at all. Your entire approach to the matter is characterized by a glaring double standard. When Lula has cordial relations with non-democracies, this is an "undemocratic aspect" of his government. But when various U.S. Administrations spanning decades maintain strategic partnerships with authoritarian governments, such partnerships somehow escape your oh-so-critical eye.
Justin--
Must have hit a sore spot. The only righteous indignation present on this board is in your straw man arguments. You're now reduced to an argument that I am wrong because I haven't fulfilled all of your criteria--consistency and amplitude--with regard to US foreign policy. LOL. The post was on a change in Chile's foreign policy and subsequently the undemocratic aspects of Lula's foreign policy.
I don't have to prove any intellectual, moral or political bona fides to a third rate academic like you.
"Socialist ideology, like so many others, has two main dangers. One stems from confused and incomplete readings of foreign texts, and the other from the arrogance and hidden rage of those who, in order to climb up in the world, pretend to be frantic defenders of the helpless so as to have shoulders on which to stand."
Jose Marti
Randy--the quote you attribute to me is not mine. I can see the reason for the confusion.
Then try posting with something other than anonymous
I don't have to prove any intellectual, moral or political bona fides to a third rate academic like you.
I'll take that as a begrudging admission that you have no consistent set of standards.
(Whether you think I'm a "third rate academic" is completely beside the point.)
Outside of all this talk, there are a couple of points related to Brazil's foreign policy - particularly that towards Cuba that need to be considered.
Brazil will not go on record publically recriminating Cuba for its internal policies. First, because the Cuban regime has beenn historically popular with many of the ruling party's rank and file. There is a political cost that Lula would pay. Second, even during the military governments Brazilian foreign policy has been based on non-intervention, and neutrality toward different forms of government. That is a view held and reinforced within the Brazilian foreing policy bureaucracy. Historically the country has had decent relations with Marxist Cuba going back to Goulart. And there is the economic factor - Petrobras wants in on the oil in Cuban waters.
It doesn't make them undemocratic.
It doesn't make them undemocratic.
Right. What it makes Brazil is a normal country.
No Great Power is in any position whatsoever to criticize Brazil for pursuing a few business interests in Cuba.
And there is the economic factor - Petrobras wants in on the oil in Cuban waters.
As does Repsol and I'm sure Exxon and Chevron would like it as well. Some of the largest critics of the US embargo are in the US business community.
As does Repsol and I'm sure Exxon and Chevron would like it as well. Some of the largest critics of the US embargo are in the US business community.
The thing is Petrobras has the advantage that Brazil is friendly towards Cuba, and the company is partly-State controlled. Brazil has money and they are willing to contribute other econommicassistance>? as part aid packages. And Petrobras has world-class resources, technology, and proven record in deep-sea drilling.
For that matter Colombias national oil company Ecopetrol is also trying to get into the Cuban action.
The whole point is that the foreign policy positions of a complex country like Brazil - originates from an interplay of a variety of sources - including internal politics, the personality and ideology of the leadership, public opinion within the country, elite opinion, bureaucratic interests and ideology, previous foreign policy policies, national and private economic interests.
How they react to outside situations, will depend also on how other neighboring countries of varied influence respond. For the most part Brazil has traditionally been fairly modest in public seeming to follow other countries lead.
In the case of Cuba, there are interests that would have hindered ANY Brazilian president from taking a strong stand. The political cost, the foreign policy establishments thinking, and the economic opportunity made it hard.
Throw in the environment in the neighborhood. Chavez - like it or not - has become Cuba's major cheerleader. A call for democratization of Cuba, would lead to a row starring Chavez played out on TV sets in Sao Paulo and every capital in the continent. Not to mention that Chavez allies like Morales already constitute a block, of sorts, and can include Argentina, indebted to Chavez.
Arguing publically against the coup in Honduras on the other hand was easy to do, because there was a regional consensus of sorts, and ticking off Honduras' military and politicians is being stung by a mosquito. There was little or no price to pay, won some goodwill. And the Brazilians can quietly go about their long term aims of being a big power.
A call for democratization of Cuba, would lead to a row starring Chavez played out on TV sets in Sao Paulo and every capital in the continent.
That has nothing to do with Lula or the PT's thinking. The reason the Brazilian Left doesn't carry Uncle Sam's water on Cuba or Venezuela is that the Brazilian Left knows that the U.S. government has nothing constructive to offer the hemisphere. To simply oppose Castro or left-populism is not a constructive proposal for dealing with the problems that all Latin Americans face.
Here is the contradiction of Brazil's foreign policy. Lula, as well as his successor, understand what it is like to be jailed unjustly for "aiding a foreign conspiracy." Still their stirring policy commitments to democracy and human rights are not applied in Cuba. Same willing blindness in Bachelet.
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/
internacional/Presos/politicos/
cubanos/piden/Lula/
abogue/Fidel/Raul/Castro/liberacion/
elpepuint/20100222elpepuint_13/
Tes#EnlaceComentarios
Post a Comment