There are no cold wars in Latin America, no rising or falling tides to be fostered or contained. Just democracies going in different directions, occasionally directions quite distant from the United States. Here in the United States, we have to get used to that, and stop viewing each electoral outcome as a harbinger of triumph or tragedy.---The Center for International Policy’s Adam Isacson blasted the “all Chávez, all the time” media focus on Latin American politics.
Isacson- whose blog normally covers Colombian affairs- targeted this Washington Post column as an example of the overemphasis placed by the mainstream on the Venezuelan president. “As president of a country of 28 million people, Hugo Chávez’s ability to determine his neighbors’ political destiny was never great” while also noting the mounting problems he has had domestically. Though Isacson claims that there’s no regionwide political pattern, he does note that “Latin American voters’ mood is turning against angry, extreme, polarizing leaders of all political stripes” such as Chavez and even his counterpart in Colombia (Alvaro Uribe).
Care to add any further thoughts, dear reader?
Image- BBC News
Online Sources- Plan Colombia and Beyond, Washington Post
Your problem is that you view Latin American politics and its context from an American foreign policy loop.
ReplyDeleteAnger in Latin America exists before Chávez's time. His opinion reflects that of many of us, which doesn't mean we support him.
The Contra death squads financed by the US in Latin America and the many lives we lost and can attribute to the US Monroe Doctrine/Big Stick Policy, taking in account that the International Court of Justice took the US government to trial back in the 80's and all UN Security Council members voted against the US for the crime of "agression" against the Nicaragua (agression is by far the worst crime a state can be blamed of, even more than "terrorism", which places US officers to the level of the Nüremberg trials, but of course the US has a veto royalty right in the UN to get away with anything) is a sufficient reason to be angry, when many of us lost friends, relatives, compatriots killed just because they had an opinion, if you can use analysis and logic or have any knowledge of this whatsoever .
Even though the Cold War is over, it is not technically over, for the same US policy towards latin America back then is still being practiced in our territories.
The death squads operating in the 80's against anyone who opposed the Palmerola military base/Contra attack on Nicaraguans are the same ones operating now in the Honduran Coup, with the same leader--Billy Joya Améndola, the nephew of General Álvarez, who was the leading General back then is there in his name and with his same ruthless human right violations.
If you are skeptical about human rights violations taking place in Honduras by the de facto government, the US supported army, the same cobra squads fromt he cold war era. Students, workers, women, peasants, all kinds of people have been killed, their human rights violated, imprisoned arbitrarily (see Amnesty International, CIDH, and HRW reports).
So basically you are wrong: we don't need Chávez to feel bitter and angry, helpless and wanting self-determination, not the determination of the USA, their companies, their interests, and so many lives lost. This is like stating that I am angry at someone beating me up for more than a century, just because a President speaks out for me.
You can place things as you like and live in your bubble, dedicating all your religious faith in your government, without any rationalization or arguments, just parroting what someone else makes up as an excuse or scapegoat(like Chávez), but the anger will worsen if you go on supporting assassins, intruding in our countries, making your will be over the peoples'-