tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post4387375978074583037..comments2024-02-21T05:16:22.788-05:00Comments on Two Weeks Notice: A Latin American Politics Blog: Piñera and platitudesGreg Weekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15765114859595124082noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-90849743087171937822010-02-23T07:34:49.266-05:002010-02-23T07:34:49.266-05:00Here is the contradiction of Brazil's foreign ...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.<br /><br />http://www.elpais.com/articulo/<br />internacional/Presos/politicos/<br />cubanos/piden/Lula/<br />abogue/Fidel/Raul/Castro/liberacion/<br />elpepuint/20100222elpepuint_13/<br />Tes#EnlaceComentariosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-24954075492702168402010-02-19T16:14:58.912-05:002010-02-19T16:14:58.912-05:00A call for democratization of Cuba, would lead to ...<i>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.</i><br /><br />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 <i>all</i> Latin Americans face.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-32688269668387259062010-02-18T13:21:49.613-05:002010-02-18T13:21:49.613-05:00The whole point is that the foreign policy positio...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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /> 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. <br /><br />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.Boli-Nicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07416904838567704211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-39800386258859176432010-02-18T13:19:34.165-05:002010-02-18T13:19:34.165-05:00As does Repsol and I'm sure Exxon and Chevron ...<i><br />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.</i><br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article182961.ece" rel="nofollow">other econommic</a>assistance>? as part aid packages. And Petrobras has world-class resources, technology, and proven record in deep-sea drilling.<br /><br />For that matter Colombias national oil company Ecopetrol is also trying to <a href="http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article182023.ece" rel="nofollow">get into</a> the Cuban action.Boli-Nicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07416904838567704211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-27797775294539311592010-02-18T09:31:25.325-05:002010-02-18T09:31:25.325-05:00And there is the economic factor - Petrobras wants...<i>And there is the economic factor - Petrobras wants in on the oil in Cuban waters.</i><br /><br />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.Randy Paulhttp://www.beautifulhorizons.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-76561859703451772862010-02-18T04:10:04.240-05:002010-02-18T04:10:04.240-05:00It doesn't make them undemocratic.
Right. Wh...<i>It doesn't make them undemocratic.</i><br /><br />Right. What it makes Brazil is a normal country. <br /><br />No Great Power is in any position whatsoever to criticize Brazil for pursuing a few business interests in Cuba.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-87800415297334427722010-02-17T23:30:08.366-05:002010-02-17T23:30:08.366-05:00It doesn't make them undemocratic.It doesn't make them undemocratic.Randy Paulhttp://www.beautifulhorizons.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-91221934106623994542010-02-17T23:19:52.904-05:002010-02-17T23:19:52.904-05:00Outside of all this talk, there are a couple of po...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.<br /><br />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.Boli-Nicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07416904838567704211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-79171655790835377362010-02-17T15:21:08.141-05:002010-02-17T15:21:08.141-05:00I don't have to prove any intellectual, moral ...<i>I don't have to prove any intellectual, moral or political bona fides to a third rate academic like you.</i><br /><br />I'll take that as a begrudging admission that you have no consistent set of standards.<br /><br />(Whether you think I'm a "third rate academic" is completely beside the point.)Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-91390414025080071922010-02-17T15:19:19.903-05:002010-02-17T15:19:19.903-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-51548832452039235662010-02-17T14:08:51.559-05:002010-02-17T14:08:51.559-05:00Randy--the quote you attribute to me is not mine. ...<i>Randy--the quote you attribute to me is not mine. I can see the reason for the confusion.</i><br /><br />Then try posting with something other than anonymousRandy Paulhttp://www.beautifulhorizons.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-42120488902760794642010-02-17T06:58:34.144-05:002010-02-17T06:58:34.144-05:00"Socialist ideology, like so many others, has..."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."<br /><br />Jose MartiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-7070242764422454872010-02-17T06:49:53.035-05:002010-02-17T06:49:53.035-05:00Justin--
Must have hit a sore spot. The only righ...Justin--<br /><br />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. <br />I don't have to prove any intellectual, moral or political bona fides to a third rate academic like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-12016344510140776972010-02-17T00:18:29.622-05:002010-02-17T00:18:29.622-05:00Justin-- I just criticized Reagan's policies a...<i>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.</i><br /><br />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 <i>explicit</i> 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 <i>various</i> U.S. Administrations spanning decades maintain strategic partnerships with authoritarian governments, such partnerships somehow escape your oh-so-critical eye.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-90336531246010789402010-02-16T23:47:11.375-05:002010-02-16T23:47:11.375-05:00I would also add that the term "democracy&quo...<i>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> <br /><br />I agree that we also need to open up the discussion about the meaning of democracy.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-12556193162190273182010-02-16T22:00:02.250-05:002010-02-16T22:00:02.250-05:00"Do you refer to the United States' strat..."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."<br />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. <br />Randy--the quote you attribute to me is not mine. I can see the reason for the confusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-43283548650775123462010-02-16T21:41:43.984-05:002010-02-16T21:41:43.984-05:00Randy, I did not argue Lula was undemocratic.
Yo...<i>Randy, I did not argue Lula was undemocratic. </i><br /><br />You juxtaposed the following statements:<br /><br /><i>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</i><br /><br />It's not unreasonable to infer from that statement you regard the current left leadership in brazil as undemocratic.Randy Paulhttp://www.beautifulhorizons.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-49805967115906590072010-02-16T19:14:55.647-05:002010-02-16T19:14:55.647-05:00Score: Justin 3, Anonymous 0
I would also add tha...Score: Justin 3, Anonymous 0<br /><br />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....<br /><br />The above just touches the surface, I could go on with this vain of argument at some lenght.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />People like Anonymous really support levels and dynamics of inequality that make for a reality that is the diametric opposite of 'democracy'.Slave Revoltnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-39138822305019731222010-02-16T12:44:02.519-05:002010-02-16T12:44:02.519-05:00No, I'm afraid there was no "willful misr...No, I'm afraid there was no "willful misreading" here. Here's what you wrote: <br /><br /><i>The most undemocratic aspect of Lula's government is his foreign policy of kow-towing to dictators.</i><br /><br />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 Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-23819410879902203832010-02-16T07:41:55.335-05:002010-02-16T07:41:55.335-05:00“By that same standard, then, Ronald Reagan was un...“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…”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-86889132081749383682010-02-15T21:33:49.781-05:002010-02-15T21:33:49.781-05:00By that same standard, then, Ronald Reagan was und...<i>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><br /><br />I think one could go further still. <i>All</i> 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.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-71661234940229321152010-02-15T21:07:10.315-05:002010-02-15T21:07:10.315-05:00The most undemocratic aspect of Lula's governm...<i>The most undemocratic aspect of Lula's government is his foreign policy of kow-towing to dictators. </i><br /><br />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.Randy Paulhttp://www.beautifulhorizons.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-80548580938519602872010-02-15T01:47:36.170-05:002010-02-15T01:47:36.170-05:00You insult a democratically elected leader by sayi...<i>You insult a democratically elected leader by saying he is surrounded by Pinochet apologists while defending Castro who is surrounded by Stalin apologists.</i><br /><br />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 <i>squarely</i> address one point that I <i>actually</i> made. I probably shouldn't hold my breath, though.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-4143740566683798342010-02-15T01:11:52.201-05:002010-02-15T01:11:52.201-05:00Nice try. You insult a democratically elected lead...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...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-18358907894419175822010-02-15T00:15:01.465-05:002010-02-15T00:15:01.465-05:00Notice, anonymous, that you don't even pretend...Notice, anonymous, that you don't even pretend to actually address my points. Calling somebody "comrade" is a pretty weak excuse for an argument.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.com