Tags
… absolutely does NOT describe the Obama Administration concerning Honduras. Other policies advocated by this administration, such as the stimulus package, can be attributed to a Keynesian-induced stupor, but to what can we attribute President Obama’s active denunciation of democratic forces in Hondruas?
As has been reported on these pages previously, the events that occurred in Honduras cannot be described as a coup. It was in line with the Honduran constitution.
So the question is why is President Obama continuing to support the expansion of Chavez-esque dictatorships throughout Latin America? Taken in conjunction with his de-funding of democratic forces across the globe, it seems like he is either attempting to curry favor with the street urchins of the world (i.e. Iran, Venezuela, et cetera) or returning to the Communist-apologia stance of “Okay, maybe the West has ‘political rights,’ but the East has ‘social rights’” (although in this case “East” would refer to any tin-pot dictator).
Either way, this does not bode well for the future of our foreign policy. This time, we are supporting the protesters (as opposed to our policy in Iran), but they’re not protesting a totalitarian government, but a democratic government who deposed of their last leader through democratic means to prevent the creation of a dictatorship. We’re allowing chaos to ensue which undermines the legitimacy of the government. Surprisingly or not, most Hondurans do not accept former President Zelaya’s claims as they understand that it was a legal removal of the president, not unknown in democracies. Further, stability is absolutely essential for the democratic institutions in Honduras to take root and flourish, so President Obama is only further impairing Hondura’s democratic maturation.
It’s astonishing how fast things can change. In one year, we go from one extreme, of Wilsonianism wrapped in a conservative package in the form of democratic realism, to President Obama where democracy is off the list. Or in the words of Hillary Clinton responding to a question on how we can support re-admitting Cuba to the OAS (for after all, Cuba isn’t a democracy):
The United States, under the Obama administration, is committed to reengaging in Latin America, to working with all countries, and we have begun doing that. We believe that lifting people out of poverty in our hemisphere, narrowing the intolerable income gap that exists between the rich and the poor in our hemisphere, working for greater social inclusion, improved education and health care — these are our goals.
We’re back to a view where political rights aren’t that important, “human rights” are good too. The West can have its right to free speech, right to property, but the third-world can have its right to a job, right to food…; they’re equal; it doesn’t matter.
But then, one is reminded of Jeane Kirkpatrick’s retort to that formulation when she said it’s amazing how those who lack the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom of assembly, and so on, also tend to lack food, shelter, and health…
Not such a bright future for American foreign policy.
"But then, one is reminded of Jeane Kirkpatrick’s retort to that formulation when she said it’s amazing how those who lack the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom of assembly, and so on, also tend to lack food, shelter, and health…"
So if the Obama administration is at least working to make sure people have food, shelter, and health… your point is?
Should we prioritize Democracy over food, shelter, and health? Wouldn't you agree that once people have food, shelter, and health, they often seek other things: like the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, etc? Which would coincide with Obama's statement today that Democracy only comes to country whose people desire it?
Kirkpatrick isn't really making a bright observation. It'd be like me saying: "It's amazing how those who have freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom of assembly, and so on, also tend to have adequate food, shelter, and health." So, to mimic your argument: shouldn't we first focus on people having adequate food, shelter, and health?
Great quote.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! "
"History shows that only when people have political freedoms do they attain necessities. Chile, for example."
Please clarify this comment. Are you suggesting that political freedom preceded economic prosperity in Pinochet's Chile? Or are you saying that it was not until Pinochet's bloody, murderous, criminal regime no longer ruled Chile that prosperity flourished?
"Thanks to Pinochet, Chileans were actually granted political freedom when he stepped down to make way for the duly elected president."
After seventeen years of political executions, forced exiles, suppression of opposition political parties, and tens of thousands of confirmed cases of torture. Allende was worse than this? Really? Because he wanted to confiscate the private property of wealthy Chileans and violated certain provisions of the Constitution? That kind of military-junta police-state totalitarianism was justified?
The evil you have chosen in this instance was a brutal murderer and torturer. Of all the things that can be said of Allende, these two cannot. How can you possibly accuse Buchanan of apologizing for Hitler when you say things like this? Between apartheid, Pinochet and Falangism, the right has some dirty totalitarian laundry that CR doesn't want to wash. I'm continually disgusted by the kind of double-think required to say that Pinochet had to suppress people's political rights in order to insure them.
It's actually not "c'est la vie" when torture is part of the equation, because, and I'm so sorry about this bud, but such is not simply life.
Out of curiosity, what are these historical facts that make you so certain that Allende intended to follow the Cuban model? I'm interested to see how certain one's historical speculation has to be in order to justify the establishment of a torture artist's paradise.
These facts are evidence of material support from the Soviet Union. It is not an indication of a plan to follow the Cuban model. There is no logical connection there whatsoever. Plenty of countries received Soviet material support during the Cold War (in fact, most countries not on good terms with the US did); there is no reason to assume that those countries, mostly lead by leftists, intended to follow the Cuban model. There is similarly no reason, based on this evidence, to assume that Allende intended to.
For instance, the ANC received Soviet military support for years in their struggle against apartheid, in a military struggle no less (as opposed to a democratic process struggle such as occured in Chile) and they were also branded as being communist stooges. Of course they weren't, and never had been, and never intended on being, and Mandela maintained a positive view of past Soviet support even as he helped set up a non-racial social democracy in South Africa. The material support from the Soviet Union had little to no bearing on the ideological direction the ANC planned and executed.
As for what Castro thought, what does it matter? He was a dictator. He would say anything. I find it unlikely you would take him at his word in other matters like you seem prepared to do here.
Also, I didn't find a quote where Castro indicated that Chile was following the same path as Cuba, only that they shared similar objectives. Can you indicate a particular statement where he indicates a similar path (as opposed to a similar intended destination)?
Though I did find this interesting tidbit:
[Question] Do you still favor armed revolution as the only way to reach
power?
[Answer] That has never been my position. We do not exclude the electoral
course. We clearly say so in the Havana Declaration. It would be a good
thing for you to read it.
Could Castro be referencing the democratic election of a revolutionary in Chile, a politician who follows a different path to power than Castro did? I think it isn't unlikely.
The fundamental point, again, is that unless you provide more unambiguous justification for claiming that Allende wanted to continue down the Cuban path, then you cannot claim that Allende was a "Castro-wannabe," and therefore you cannot justify favorably comparing the lunatic-dictator-murderer-torturer Pinochet to the democratically elected-socialist-popular Allende.
That isn't a rhetorical point either. If you can provide such evidence, I'd be interested to see it. But the burden of proof for justifying the claim that Allende was a "Castro-wannabe" is on you.
It does not take a detachment from reality to know that at the time it was overthrown, Allende's government was in no way, shape or form a police state. Your historian Andrews notes just this when he writes:
"In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure."
and
"The most significant aspect of the failed coup was the apathetic response to it by Chilean workers. Allende broadcast an appeal for “the people . . . to pour into the centre of the city” to defend his Government. They did not do so."
and
"But Allende was also anxious to avoid bloodshed. Convinced that popular resistance would be mown down by Pinochet’s troops, he bravely chose to sacrifice himself rather than his followers."
What kind of "wanna-be Castro" refuses to use violence against his opponents, and is anxious to avoid bloodshed? What kind of proto-police state dictator calls on the workers to defend his government, rather than the massive secret police force that one would assume a police-state would control? You can speculate all you want and claim that he would have wound up at a police state eventually, but from the evidence you've provided that's all that is: speculation. And as I think is pretty clear to anyone with a moral conscience, you cannot justify a real police state full of sadistic, twisted and repressive torturers (that of Pinochet) by contrasting them favorably with a speculative "future" police state under Allende. As of 2009 it is Pinochet, and not Allende, who is remembered by historians and lawyers as a perpetrator of crimes against humanity.
As for Allende being a KGB agent, I don't really know where this came from. How would you define him as a "KGB agent"?
So I'm sorry Dent, but the burden of proof is still on you.