Hillary Clinton and James Steinberg "Talk Tough" on Latin America

[subsuelo]

...comments by Clinton and other recent appointees show a continuation of an antiquated analysis and a lack of understanding of recent Latin American social movements and regional integration.

...newly appointed Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, boldly stated that "Our friends and partners in Latin America are looking to the United States to provide strong and sustained leadership in the region, as a counterweight to governments like those currently in power in Venezuela and Bolivia which pursue policies which do not serve the interests of their people or the region." This begs the question of exactly who "our friends and partners in Latin America" are, as many Latin American countries are happily accepting funding for humanitarian projects from Venezuela, and Bolivia is hardly in an economic position to pull strings around the continent. These and other comments by Clinton show that the Obama administration intends to continue a foreign policy in Latin America based on corporate benefit and a misplaced fear of Latin American nationalism.

Last week, Clinton continued the trend of lumping together the drastically different countries and governments of Venezuela and Bolivia and characterizing them both as negative influences on the continent. She called for the U.S. to fill what she referred to as "that void" of US attention "with strong and sustained US leadership in the region, and tough and direct diplomacy with Venezuela and Bolivia. We should have a positive agenda for the hemisphere in response to the fear-mongering propagated by Chavez and Evo Morales."

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1693/60/">Upside Down World - read more

[Judi Lynn]

1. Great article. We're still waiting for these people to define themselves more clearly.

They're going to be stunningly surprised if they imagine they can continue the time-worn pattern of US interference in Latin America. The people who will resist this is growing continually, gaining strength, cohesion, solidarity. They have learned from their history as victims of exploitation, and they have the whole sorry picture of their countries' pasts to study in infinite detail. There's no way they're going to allow themselves to be beaten and terrorized into complete submission again. That's just not going to happen.

[EFerrari]

2. What fear mongering could they possibly be talking about?

Fear of free elections?

Or?!

lol

[Bacchus39]

3. like Chavez said there would be war if the opposition regained power

things like that I'm guessing.

[EFerrari]

4. And this from the woman that said she was going to nuke Iran. lol

[Judi Lynn]

5. She's too compromised because of her husband's Plan Colombia, also.

I just learned the other day that during her husband's Presidency it was already known that the Colombian military, and the death squads were both killing farmers, villagers, and claiming them as dead rebels.

He knew this BEFORE he signed Plan Colombia. It means he's far dirtier than we knew at the time.

[EFerrari]

6. And, iirc, Bill Clinton and Penn both got $ to lobby for the Colombian FTA

very recently. 2006? 2007? I think 2007.

[Bacchus39]

8. if they nuked Israel.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/

Hugo would be sad if his Iranian friend were killed I bet

[EFerrari]

9. Right! I bet all those kids who are into American culture in Iran

felt much warmer towards us after she threatened to obliterate them for something they're government will never do!

[Bacchus39]

10. well, if their government doesn't nuke Israel then Hillarly won't nuke them

so there is no reason to fear now is there?? if Iranian kids want to see a more open society for themselves they'll have to work from within Iran.

[EFerrari]

11. You're missing the point. The point is her rhetoric is far more over the top

than any diplomat's ever should be if they are serious about diplomacy as a tool.

[Bacchus39]

12. what about the Iranian president calling for the extermination of Israel

or Chavez statement that war would come if he is booted from power, or his previous statements that the US was going to invade and/or assassinate him.

what are your thoughts about the appropriateness of those statements in the diplomatic realm??

[EFerrari]

13. Why Chavez would imagine the US attempting to topple him, Gawd only knows.

lol

And are you seriously using the president of Iran as a measure for our Secretary of State's behavior? Seriously?

[Bacchus39]

15. interesting. you have very low expectations for other countries' rulers

however, I would agree given Iran's president and Chavez, expectations shouldn't be too high.

Clinton wasn't Secretary of State at the time, but you knew that right? Not that I disagree with her hypothetical answer.

[EFerrari]

16. No, at the time, Clinton was running for CIC.

That position where you're supposed to stay calm under pressure.

Good luck to the State Department.

[Bacchus39]

17. what would the appropriate response to a nuke attack on Israel be? diplomacy?

Obama is the president anyway. Clinton seems adequate for the State Department. never was a fan of her anyway. I like her better than Hugo or Ahmadinejad though.

[EFerrari]

18. Again, you miss the point entirely.

Her rhetoric escalates the situation for no reason. She wasn't responding to a fictional nuclear attack. She was creating the context for our relations with Iran.

But as you say, Obama is president anyway and Clinton seems adequate. :crazy:

[Bacchus39]

19. yes, I understand. you nuke Israel, we nuke you. got it. sounds good!!!

Looks like you're in for another frustrating 4 years.

[EFerrari]

21. And there is your understanding of foreign relations, succinctly summarized.

[Bacchus39]

22. again, odd how your "standards" only apply to the US. 4 more years of misery for you.

it doesn't sound like the Obama administration is one you can support.

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. ... like providing CIA "support" for traitorous, mega-parasite, media-owners.

[EFerrari]

14. I like your new user name.

lol

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. Thanks, I wasn't sure. Well, coming from someone with the surname, "Ferrari",

that's high praise indeed!

But a few other people have said they liked it. Like all strokes of towering genius, it just came to me in an instant. Quick as a flash! Though I wish I'd inserted "The Plasterer" boxer-style, between the Joe and the Chi....

[roody]

23. Talking shit again.

[Peace Patriot]

24. BoRev has a great riff today on the corpo/fascist media and South America.

And the corpo/fascist media is where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama get their anti-democratic rhetoric from, and it is who they must kneel to, if they don't want to be "swift-boated" (or worse). Let's just hope that some of their lying bullshit about Venezuela and Bolivia is cover, and that their (or at least Obama's) intentions are actually peaceful. What I hope is that he's letting her try out the "divide and conquer" Bushwhacky thing, and, when that doesn't work--and it won't--maybe he'll try something better, like peace and cooperation, and support for the genuine democracies in these countries.

On the front page at www.BoRev.net...

"Guess What? You're Not Crazy, The Media Is"

and at

http://www.borev.net/2009/02/guess_what_youre_not_crazy_the.html

[Judi Lynn]

26. You have to see these things to believe them. BoRev provides a good look.

We see this stuff all the time, but it never seems possible people would want to do this. We've been looking into the Heart of Darkness, by god!

Very happy to see the Benjamin Dangl article they linked. He is SUPERB every time he publishes anything. Always.

The FAIR article is clearly worth saving for files, as well.

Thanks.

[Peace Patriot]

25. And here's the FAIR report on media treatment of human rights--Colombia vs Venezuela--

that BoRev links to.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3699

Believe me, THIS is why U.S. foreign policy in South America is so bad--the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies that control what our politicians think, say and do.