AMERICA'S OLD SCHOOL MENTALITY FAILS AGAIN: SAMANTHA POWER PROVOKES ANGRY REACTION FROM VENEZUELA

 


Samantha Power's nomination process for the charge of US envoy at the United Nations might just have hit a snag.  

Just yesterday, Power firmly reiterated what had been points often rehashed from cold war era textbooks.  Power affirmed that were she to be nominated, she would "stand up to repressive regimes.....and challenge the crackdown on civil society being carried out in countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia and Venezuela."

Poor choice of words. When foreign countries hear the world 'crackdown', they think of the war in Iraq, plain and simple, even though the crackdown she refers to is their own.  But the word stand up? What does she mean?  In order to understand what she might mean, one has to go back a bit and realize that Samantha Power is basically the torch bearer for Isreal.  Nothing wrong with trying to protect Israel. But she has gotten a little too close to people whose utterances are vitriolic in regards to the Palestinian community.  Her cozy rapport and professional relationship with Rabbi Boteach can easily give one the impression that impartiality might not be her best suit.  And this is a person nominated to the United Nations, let's not forget.  

All it needed was a change of words, let's say change 'crackdown' to stifling, or other likewise non-aggressive word. 

Then again, Power has been known as a pretty aggressive enforcer of the 'ideal' of democracy America stands for. But, her literary achievements notwithstanding, her latest affiliation with some pretty radical element of pro-Isreali politicians and figures could raise some important eyebrows.

Be as it may, that many of the countries she cited do have issues with civil liberties, the old school meme that America has to be the country that oversees the world community and dictate what is just and what isn't has to be set aside.  America needs a new mission, a new credo.  And to do what is proposes to do for the good of mankind,it must keep in mind its own shortcomings, and try to establish communications and cooperation on civil rights matter with the countries we deem dictatorial or repressive, so that there could be a much more positive outcome than saying we will clamp down on you, one way or the other.  Let's not forget that the precedent President invaded Iraq just under that same credo, of regime change inevitably dictated by Hussein's 'crackdown' on its people.

Being at odds in a way that is confrontational puts the other countries on the defensive.  After all our record is not that great. We let Rwanda rot during the genocide, but we invaded Iraq for much less.

What are foreign countries to think of these words she has spoken? Does this mean war? Are we getting hit with crippling economic sanctions?  The mood, if anything, will be anything but conciliatory if this approach is taken.

The carrot and the stick does not always work with foreign entities.  And that's because most of them are not asses, nor donkeys or horses.  They are complex entities that need the kind of two way collaboration, empathy and coordination that can justify changing the status quo in their own land, without looking like they are servants to the power of the United States.  

We are powerful yes, but are we magnanimous?  We are rich yes, but are we generous?  

For all the money we spend and have spent trying to bend the will of foreign potentates, through wars, invasions and bribes, we could have easily used the funds to implement programs that benefited the population in those countries directly, bypassing the graft and corruption a direct aid package could have been undermined by, and truly get things going. 

Venezuela is a case in point. Yes the country is run by a autocratic regime, composed now of a hand me down politician chosen by the defunct president to be its leader, but it is not a failed state, in the same likeness as say Afghanistan or other countries where the dictatorial regime has all but shut out any possible foreign influence and repressed  the population completely

And why Cuba, or Venezuela, or even Russia?  Why not places like some of the Stan provinces, in which democracy is all but dead.  If we are talking about civil rights, then why not China, or certain African countries? It's all too simplistic.  

Iran has oil.  Iran has the precursor of an atomic bomb.  Russia has riches and power.  Cuba is communist, and even though it has an economic that is barely past breathing, it must be targeted.  For what?  Did we really suddenly realize that Cuba has a repressive regime? And Venezuela, an important, oil rich country that could make or break our image in the Southern hemisphere, does it really need to be confronted with threats?

What America choses to do with its foreign friends and foes is of course up to the government, but to be so bold, so brash and uncouth is truly unbecoming this great country.  It also might bring the U.S. the same results it has so far, which on the whole are not so great.

Op-Ed

Partial Source; France 24/ 7.20.13

No comments:

Post a Comment