American Abroad

Obama support for Honduras Elections proves Chavez right

Obama’s support for the Honduran elections on Sunday makes Hugo Chavez look like a prophet. Tomorrow, the de facto government of Honduras will be holding what the military regime refers to as an ‘electoral fiesta’ to choose the new president of the country. Elected president Manuel Zelaya–overthrown in a military coup in June—has not been invited.

Tired and beaten Zelaya supporters are on the verge of accepting defeat. Months of strategic military repression, curfews and media blackouts have cast a shadow on the prospect of a people’s revolution.

But perhaps the most shocking (or expected, depending on your world view) turn of events has been the about-face of the US government. President Barak Obama has steadfastly condemned the first coup since the dark days of military dictatorships in Latin America. Desperate to shake off America’s reputation as an imperial power in the region, the president joined world leaders in calling for the return of democracy to the small island country.

However, Washington showed its true colours on Tuesday, indicating that the US’s recognition of the election outcome was not dependent on Zelaya’s reinstatement. According to the Guardian, Congressional Republicans have won the argument; supporting the military regime in Honduras means gaining an ally in a region shifting dangerously leftward. Sound familiar?

The strategy is an old one. It dates back to the banana republics of the twentieth century, when American fruit corporations’ interests were protected through intervention, police action and occupation. US troops were stationed in Honduras for two decades to ensure that a democratically elected government would not interfere with a US-Honduran business alliance. Under American president Ronald Reagan, Honduras was even used as an outpost for a military base to overthrow Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has long criticized American imperial interests in the region. During the Americas Summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April he made headlines by presenting Obama with Eduardo Galeano’s Open Veins of Latin America as a gift. Maybe Chavez should have bothered buying the English version, because it seems that five months later the book has not been read. Obama’s decision to back Sunday’s vote sends a clear message that the US hasn’t learned from its neo-colonial past.

The power-sharing deal in Honduras fell apart after Washington’s announcement, and few are hopeful that democracy will be restored in the country. Honduras will face a tough road ahead. America is one of the only countries to support the elections, and international funding and aid have been virtually cut off.

But if Chavez was proven right on US foreign policy, than it’s certainly worth considering that he is correct on something else too. This time around, Latin America’s slew of leftist leaders will be a much stronger foe.

Venezuela-Colombia dispute will be a bumpy ride

The destruction of two pedestrian bridges on the border between Venezuela and Colombia is the latest move in an un-neighbourly dispute that edges ever closer to the boiling point.

Venezuela’s firebrand president Hugo Chavez announced last week that the Venezuelan military should “prepare for war” to ensure peace between the rival nations. Tensions between the Andean neighbours have risen considerably after right-wing Colombian president Alvaro Uribe signed a deal to extend US access to Colombian military bases.

Chavez accused the Colombian leader of being a US pawn. Claiming that the US aims to start a proxy-war with Venezuela, he is readying the troops.

The Venezuelan leader could be accused of opportunism, attention-grabbing, and even deep-seated paranoia. But then again, he does have history behind him. The US has a long tradition of interference in Latin America, dating back to the CIA operation that unseated democratically elected president Salvador Allende in Chile.

Lately, however, America’s backyard has been left to grow wild while the US concentrates on foreign wars in the Middle East. A number of leftist leaders have come to power, including Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. These charismatic presidents are calling the shots, asserting their sovereignty, and taking a decidedly anti-American approach to foreign policy.

So is the US looking to flex its muscles and re-assert its political and economic interests in the region? Possibly. But again, Afghanistan is nowhere near a done deal, addressing the recession at home is an electoral must, and peace in the Middle East continues to take centre-stage in the battle for hearts, minds and oil.

While considerably annoying, like a pesky gnat buzzing in one’s ear, Chavez is not likely to become the next target of US combat operations. So what does that mean for the emerging conflict between Venezuela and Colombia?

The Guardian reports that full-scale war is unlikely, but there is potential for “a bloody border clash”. A senior European diplomat told the newspaper: “Things are so tense it’s definitely possible. Alarm bells should be ringing.”

If fighting breaks out there is no doubt that the US will back (however clandestinely) its Colombian ally. But a further escalation will have significant repercussions in a region that, despite a propensity for civil wars, has seen comparatively few interstate conflicts.

Colombia has said that Venezuela’s destruction of the pedestrian bridges is a violation of international law. Defence minister Gabriel Silva says Bogotá will make a formal complaint to the United Nations and the Organisation of American States, but Colombia will not allow the incident to lead to an armed conflict.

For their part, Venezuelan officials say that the action was taken to prevent the walkways being used by illegal armed forces and drug traffickers.

If the US administration’s reaction to the coup attempt against Honduran president Manuel Zelaya earlier this year is anything to go by, American president Barack Obama will be reticent of appearing to meddle in internal regional affairs. But this doesn’t mean that just because the guns-blazing George Bush tactics have been shirked, there won’t be quiet maneuvering behind the scenes. War between Colombia and Venezuela might be off the table, but Latin American leaders should brace themselves for a bumpy ride.

A stand-off at Copenhagen will hurt developing countries most

It is widely anticipated that developing countries are prepared to play hard ball in the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Summit in December. Political commentators like Naomi Klein have compared the Summit to the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle in 1999, when developing countries demanded that wealthier nations address unfair trade rules. “There is certainly a Seattle quality to the Copenhagen mobilisation”, Klein commented in the Guardian on Thursday. “The range of groups that will be there; the diverse tactics that will be on display; and the developing-country governments ready to bring activist demands into the summit.”

But of course while Seattle was a milestone for the ‘anti-globalisation’ movement, the meeting itself proved to be an exercise in frustration and dashed hopes. Many fear that the Copenhagen summit could be more of the same, with wealthier countries pitted against poorer ones in a last-ditch attempt to limit the damage of global warming. The developing world demands compensation for cutting emissions, in an argument that boils down to two points:

1. they are not the ones responsible for climate change, so it is not their duty to fix it;

2. they lack the resources to take action, and the cost will be devastating for nations in the grip of poverty.

This stance has its merits, but the question of how much developing countries contribute to climate change warrants some degree of circumspection. According to recent figures, developing nations were responsible for over half the total CO₂ emitted in 2007. Rapidly expanding countries like China and India have huge coal stocks and growing consumer-driven populations that put them on the verge of overtaking major polluting countries in the west. Removing power houses like China, India and Brazil from the mix, the rest of the developing world is still responsible for a quarter of global carbon emissions.

Of course developing countries must weigh up the huge economic cost attributed to tackling climate change. Deforestation is a harmful practice, but it is a lifeline to millions in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Congo and Cameroon. Cutting ore exports will sharply increase unemployment for miners in Latin America and Africa, while vast numbers of steel workers and farmers also face an uncertain future.

The sick irony is, however, that the effects of climate change will be most felt in the developing world. Poorer nations will be worst hit by changing weather patterns, leading to drought, floods and famine. The Global Humanitarian Forum estimates that 99 per cent of climate change deaths (over 300,000 a year) are occurring in poor countries.

World leaders have a duty to provide billions in economic aid to help poorer countries manage these costs, and bullying developing countries into sacrificing too much at the table in Copenhagen will get nowhere. However, developing countries should recognize that they have a shared responsibility and that it is in their own self-interest to reach a binding agreement.

Countries with the greatest bargaining power and responsibility for climate change must make the first step. But developing nations should be prepared to take the second.

Media freedom threatened in Latin America

Most journalists in Latin America are worried. There are few countries where reporters receive admiration or even respect. But the abuse thrown at the world’s watchdogs in this region has grown alarmingly. In many Latin American countries today the media is treated with suspicion, and journalists are perceived as enemies of the state.

During my time freelancing in Venezuela I was struck by the polarization of the country. In interviews with government officials, academics and civil society groups it became evident that a sharp dividing line between government supporters and critics coloured even the most arbitrary issues. In Venezuela opposition parties are weak, and the private media is the strongest voice of criticism of the government. This has put the national media on a collision course with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Chavez has repeatedly accused the private media of attempting to dismantle the government, and his frequent televised addresses against the press have exposed journalists to vigilante violence from Chavista groups.

The government-led war against the media is not without its justifications. It is well-documented that the national broadcaster Radio Caracas Televisión Internacional (RCTV) played a major role in the coup attempt against President Chavez in 2002. But this has led to the collective punishment of the press. To date, the Chavez administration has shut down 34 radio stations and two television networks, and the licences of a further 210 local radio stations and 40 television stations are under threat.

Similarly, in Mexico, reporters who attempt to cover the illegal drugs trade or human rights abuses by the state face intimidation and even death. Journalists who refuse to be silenced through bribery or threats often end up in a body bag. According to a 2008 International Federation of Journalists survey on the deadliest countries for reporters, only Iraq and India topped Mexico.

What sets Latin America apart from many parts of the world is a vibrant civil society. Decades of opposition against military juntas that ruled much of Latin America throughout the late 60s to the early 80s have instilled a deep respect for democratic rule. But the strength of civil society can also be seen as a threat. A past rife with political upheaval looms large in the minds of Latin American leaders, and fearful heads of state worry that an oppositional media has the power to unseat them.

As in Venezuela, there is no doubt that the media does not always act as a constructive democratic force. But while measures should be taken to ensure responsible journalism, removing the media entirely is a step in the wrong direction. Media freedom is often the first causality in an all out war against democratic freedoms. Governments forfeit their claim to democracy when they inhibit this fundamental right.

UN vote on Israel does little but reaffirm traditional battle-lines

The United States failure to back the United Nations Resolution on the Goldstone Report was expected. But it is still another twist of the knife for those who believed that US president Barak Obama’s promise for change would extend to the Middle East. The UN General Assembly voted last week on adopting the document’s recommendations. The report, based on findings from the UN Fact Finding Mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone, concluded that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the conflict last winter.

The resolution was approved by 114 countries out of 176. But in keeping with a familiar pattern of UN referendums concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the usual suspects backed out. The US voted against the motion, along with 17 other countries including Israel, Canada, Italy, and Germany. The UK abstained, in a move most likely intended to appease its US allies and large domestic Muslim population. Spain, France and Russia followed suit, along with 40 other member states.

The US denounced the report as “unbalanced and biased”, joining Israeli condemnation. Neither country acknowledged Goldstone’s record as chief prosecutor in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda war crime trials, and his own self-professed “long affiliation with Israel”. Goldstone has made a point of emphasizing that the 574-page document “does not amount to second-guessing commanders and soldiers in the heat of battle”.

The report calls on the UN Security Council to take action. Following the vote of confidence by the majority of UN member states, this could (or more aptly, should) lead to alleged crimes being referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. However, given the tepid support from the world’s power houses, few seasoned political analysts are holding their breath.

To date, the majority of people to appear before the ICC have been African leaders. Some suspects like Slobodan Milosevic and most recently Radovan Karadzic have faced prosecution, but only because Serbia lost the 1990s war. The court has never investigated whether the US committed war crimes in Iraq, or whether Russia is responsible for crimes against humanity in Chechnya. The countries involved have too much power to face prosecution. The system of international law is only as powerful as its members, and without major backing by world powers it is essentially toothless.

The fate of the Goldstone Report will ultimately have little to do with whether war crimes were committed during the Israeli offensive, and all to do with whether Israel has enough clout to disregard it. Though of course, given the marriage of US foreign policy to Israeli interests, the real question is whether the US is powerful enough to shrug off the UN. If history is anything to go by, the answer is obvious.

Perhaps it is too much to expect the Obama administration–bogged down by domestic political pressure– to take responsibility for the US’s role in this long-running conflict. But nonetheless, it is wholly disheartening to accept that when it comes to Israel, the traditional battle-lines will remain the same.