More of the Same in Latin America
There were great hopes in Latin America when President Obama was elected. U.S. standing in the region had reached a low point under George W. Bush, and all of the left governments expressed optimism that Obama would take Washington’s policy in a new direction.
These hopes have been dashed. President Obama has continued the Bush policies and in some cases has done worse.
The military overthrow of democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras on June 28 has become a clear example of Obama’s failure in the hemisphere. There were signs that something was amiss in Washington when the first statement from the White House failed to even criticize the coup. It was the only such statement from a government to take a neutral position. The U.N. General Assembly and the Organization of American States voted unanimously for “the immediate and unconditional return” of President Zelaya.
Conflicting statements from the White House and State Department emerged over the ensuing days, but last Friday the State Department made clear its “neutrality.” In a letter to Senator Richard Lugar, the State Department said that “our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual,” and appeared to blame Mr. Zelaya for the coup: “President Zelaya’s insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal.”
This letter was all over the Honduran media, which is controlled by the coup government and its supporters, and it strengthened them politically. Congressional Republicans who have supported the coup immediately claimed victory.
On Monday, President Obama repeated his statement that Mr. Zelaya should return. But by then nobody was fooled.
Mr. Obama has said that he “can’t push a button and suddenly reinstate Mr. Zelaya.” But he hasn’t pushed the buttons that he has at his disposal, such as freezing the U.S. assets of the coup leaders, or canceling their visas. (The State Department cancelled five diplomatic visas of members of the coup government, but they can still enter the United States with a normal visa — so this gesture had no effect).
With Clinton associates such as Lanny Davis and Bennett Ratcliff running strategy for the coup government, the Pentagon looking out for its military base in Honduras, and the Republicans ideologically tied to the coup leaders, it should be no surprise that Washington is more worried about protecting its friends in the dictatorship than about democracy or the rule of law.
But it doesn’t make Mr. Obama’s policy any less disgraceful. And Washington has remained silent about the dictatorship’s human rights abuses, which have been condemned by human rights organizations worldwide.
In addition to its failure in Honduras, the Obama administration raised concerns last week among such leaders as President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Michelle Bachelet of Chile with its decision to increase the U.S. military presence in Colombia. Washington apparently did not consult with South American governments — other than Colombia — beforehand. The pretext for the expansion is, as usual, the “war on drugs.” But the legislation in Congress that would finance this expansion allows for a much broader role. No wonder South America is suspicious. Mr. Obama also has not reversed the Bush administration’s decision to reactivate the U.S. Navy’s Fourth Fleet in the Caribbean, for the first time since 1950 — a decision that raised concerns in Brazil and other countries.
President Obama has also continued the Bush administration’s trade sanctions against Bolivia, which are seen throughout the region as an affront to Bolivia’s national sovereignty. And despite President Obama’s handshake with President Hugo Chávez, the State Department has maintained about the same level of hostility toward Venezuela as President Bush did in his last year or two.
President Obama’s policies have drawn mostly only mild rebuke because he is still enjoying a honeymoon. But he is doing serious damage to U.S.-Latin American relations, and to the prospects for democracy and social progress in the region.

Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
41 Comments so far
Show AllSomewhere on the tube last week I saw a report about Bolivia. Seems they have the largest deposits of whatever it is (lithium?) that will be needed to make all the batteries for electric cars etc. Not just the largest but practically the only deposits. Get out your maps and paint a bullseye over Bolivia.
a PBS report says they have approximately 70 % of the world's known lithium resources at a place called Salar de Uyuni. The Bolivians also have large natural gas reserves, but they nationalized the industry and can't export as much as they want, because Brazil was the main buyer, now the Brazilians are mad at the Bolivians and decided to develop their own gas fields. This means Bolivia has to be careful to develop the lithium mines so the product can be marketed with value added, but with a realistic idea of how far they can go.
Whether we like the Latin American governments or not, we have no right to interfere in their affairs, unless they interfere in ours. Let's get our own house in order first.
I agree, we shouldn't interefere in their affairs, unless they're doing something gross like genocide.
I heartily agree! However, not "interfer[ing] in their affairs" would represent a radical departure from a 150 years of consistent US policy in the region. See "Killing Hope" by William Blum.
Bolivia is not poor enough?
Why is the USA sanctioning a peaceful democratic government?
This article is a lie.
The US has no trade sanctions placed on Bolivia. We ended a free trade agreement with them. They now pay the same tariffs that numerous other nation do.
The Andean Trade Pact was an agreement that offered duty free trade of certain goods in return for cooperation with US Drug reduction efforts.
Yes, Bolivia is a poor nation and the Andean trade pact provided some 20,000 jobs and roughly $300 million dollars to Bolivia. If they wanted to keep it they shouldn't have expelled our Ambassador and kicked out the DEA-that was the whole premise of the agreement after all!
By the way i was under the impression you were against free trade anyways so why are you complaining over the fact the US just canceled a free trade agreement?
Are you confused again glenn ford?
this rant has the smell of psy-ops. best to ignore it
What an inept response.
When you can't refute something just ignore it?
If anyone here wonders why you never seem to be able to progress your foreign policy agenda i suggest you pause and examine the stupidity of guernica and his like...
Maybe if an intelligent thought were expressed every once and a while you might actually find someone who would listen to you!
I give you credit for having a larger vocabulary however you seem to suffer the same aliment guernica is inflicted with...you are completely unable to offer any respectable retort.
Name calling is the first and last resort of the feeble-minded.
u totally pwned there.
Obama:
“The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we’re always intervening and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can’t have it both ways."
Obama's calling of his critics "hypicritical" is rich. The critics are not asking Obama to "intervene" but to uphold the law - our own laws and international law. But I think Obama's comment about his critics is revealing. The US Govt only "follows" international law when it suits them, as clearly it does not in this case - even when there is near unanimous condemnation in the international community with respect to the Honduran coup. But if the Obama administration called it a coup, they would have to follow our own laws, requiring actions that would hurt the coup leaders (which they tacitly support). So, following our own, let alone international law, from any US president's point of view is not really that different than an intervention. They are both expressions of US power and elite interests. This should be an object lesson that while Obama's rhetoric may break from the past, his actions will demonstrate continuity.
Yes there was a whole lot of condemnation but no action. In fact Canada didn't even halt it's training program for the Honduran Army.
There is no international law requiring us to do anything about Hondurans. Domestic law only calls for the halting of all aid, humanitarian and military, to the nation if the State Department declares it a military coup. Do you really want to halt all humanitarian aid to the poorest nation in South America?
Also, seeing how the Supreme Court ordered the Army to arrest Zelaya and the Congress voted overwhelming to impeach Zelaya, his own party voted against him by the way, it seems that calling this a military coup is incorrect...
Chavez want us to put Zelaya in a Humvee with a couple of US Marines and drive him back to the Presidential Palace. Such hypocrisy!
Honduras isn't in South America, it's in Central America.
You are correct.
I, honestly, thank you for correcting my mistake.
You are welcome. I studied drifting continents and all that in a geology course, and I was surprised when I found out Mexico and parts of Guatemala are part of North America, and Central America all the way down to Panama is its own separate province.
There must be an echo in here for surely you don't repeat yourself like a disabled fool!
Larson 10:38 very clear and powerful post. Thanks !
Some countries are just too important for the U.S. to take real sides on. When Chavez was overthrown the U.S. quickly recognized the new government and when Chavez came back they quickly reversed themselves. The reason? Venezuela is too important. This is also why Chavez gets away with shooting his mouth off. The U.S. has interests in Honduras. It won't want to anger who ever is in power unless they make a move against the US first.
Had Zelaya wanted U.S. support he should have flown straight to Washington D.C. after being deported.
When Chavez was overthrown the US government recognized the coup because Bush a bad guy, and besides was the worst president we ever had. I think you have to agree after Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and all the other bad things he did. I don't know why you say Chavez shoots his mouth at the US, most of what he said about Bush was true, and I think he likes Obama. And Venezuela isn't that important to us, it's just another South American country. I bet most of us don't even know where it is.
If there was one constant message coming form Chavez's mouth it was "Yankee Go Home."
Now you complain that we aren't doing enough in Latin America?
When you make up your mind come and tell us what it is that you want us to do...
Okay, I'll bite:
We DO want you gringos to stay the hell away from us.
If you want to see beaches and pyramids, just mail us the money and we'll send you a dvd.
That's really dumb, tourism is a killer application for you guys. It doesn't pollute if you bother to clean your sewage, and it brings a lot of money. You get to sell hotel services, tourist guides, restaurant food, wood carvings, leather goods, and even DVDs sold at the airport and things like that. I know because I went to Mexico and spent a lot of money over there. And I bet the Mexicans liked it.
I don't know why Obama would be hostile towards Venezuela. This story is pushing an idea but there are no facts to back it up.
Your post was completely incoherent.
Where have you been for the past 12 years?
Obama became president in 2009. Where have YOU been?
Chavez campaigned for the presidency of Venezuela in 1997. He was elected in 1998. He took the presidency in 1999. His first act was to revive OPEC. The rest is the history of gringos foaming at the mouth because a non-white man cut them off at the knees.
But you DO have a point: I left Gringolandia behind almost 20 years ago.
Couldn't pay me enough to even send in a never counted absentee ballot.
I didn't know his first act was to revive OPEC. Isn't Saudi Arabia in charge of OPEC anyway?
"failure" is an odd word for a coup that succeeded, most likely with 0bama's approval.
Surely 0 has fooled nearly no one south of McAllen, Texas. But that's not very new, is it?
By foolery 0 convince the gringos. By the bases, he would convince the hispanos.
Venezuela has oil, so 0's prepping to get nasty.
Solidarity, folks - this looks bad.
very very bad, o by co-opting the left, is successfully completing the militarisation of the u.s. and its full conversion into an ancient-rome-style absolute military empire.
We need to put a stop to that. I hate the idea, and when I see our soldiers at the airport I get real mad, because they think they're defending us, and all they're doing is fighting for a stupid empire.
I propose an online voter initiative and referendum to end the War on Drugs.
Good idea