Devil In the Details
Turns out that many of those delegates who last month applauded and cheered Hugo Chavez' juvenile speech before the UN find him to be more reliable as a lounge act rather than as a diplomat. In the end, they still believe that consensus rather than confrontation is more in the spirit of the UN and there can be little doubt that whatever chance Venezuela had evaporated in last month's whiff of sulphur and brimstone.
After ten rounds of voting on Monday, Venezuela failed to win the 2/3 vote needed in the General Assembly to win a much-coveted two year seat on the Security Council. The U.S.-backed candidate, Guatemala, also failed opening the way, hopefully, for a third, consensus candidate.
No doubt the Venezuelan claim of U.S. arm-twisting and aggressive lobbying are true. This would be the case under any circumstances but most assuredly after Chavez' performance last month. But let's be clear, Chavez has also been spreading around hundreds of millions in petro-dollars in an attempt to buy himself the seat.
A deadlock seems to me the best of temporary outcomes. Guatemala is but an automatic proxy vote for the Bush Administration. And Venezuela would be, well, you can judge that on your own. However big a critic you (and I ) might be of the White House, do we really want a regime that's been arse-kissing the Iranian and North Korean governments on the Security Council? I don't think so.
One country in contention as a compromise is Uruguay. An excellent choice. The 18-month old government in Montevideo is progressive, serious and sane.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
“A deadlock seems to me the best of temporary outcomes. Guatemala is but an automatic proxy vote for the Bush Administration. And Venezuela would be, well, you can judge that on your own. However big a critic you (and I ) might be of the White House, do we really want a regime that’s been arse-kissing the Iranian and North Korean governments on the Security Council? I don’t think so.”
Bullshit. Whatever else may be true about Venezuela they have an elected and popular government with a far stronger claim to democracy than many of the states currently on the security council. With powerful forces in Washington fishing for a pretext to launch what would be an absolutely disastrous war on Iran youre damn right Id be more comfortable having Venuzuala sitting on the SC than some autocratic US client state. The US adminstration never really gave the reform movement in Iran much of a chance and their war mongering moves, which Marc seems to support, is systematically strengthening the powers of the hardline mullahs. A war led by the same geniuses who engineered the invasion of Iraq would be absolutely fatal. Venezuela can be counted on to buck the trend. Why doesnt Marc ask residents of Qana his silly question. I can guarantee they would tell him that the American regime poses a greater threat to their safety and well being than Chavez ever will.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:02 am
What a fabulously emotional rant, Ahmed. One day I’d like to know from where is born the tendency to attribute the worst motives to one’s debating partner. For example, I think your position is ridiculous but I DONT think that you are a supporter of the Iranian government. It would be nice to have you extend the same courtesy to me i.e. that you can accept my criticism of the Chavez government without having to resort to the patently empty charge that I somehow support a war against Iran. That’s pretty thin stufff, Ahmed.
I absolutely do not. Nor do I support fools like Chavez who uncritically support the Mullahs. What’s so difficult ro understand about that?
(for the record: as I clearly stated and as you conveniently overlook, I also oppose Guatemala taking the seat. But it let be noted that the Guatemalan government is also a properly elected one and while pro US and dominated by elites, it is every bit as “elected” as Chavez.)
Indeed, I would venture to the say that to the degree that anti-war forces on the issue of Iran are championed by elected or otherwise clowns like Chavez, the more likely war will become.
I will also remind you that GW Bush –like it or not– is also the duly elected Pres of the United States. So what? This isnt about internal electoral processes, it’s about life and death nternational politics. You comfortable with Chavez as your spokesman? Bully for you, comrade. I’d rather not have him on my side, thanks very much.
In any case, he’s talked himself and his country right out of the Security Council slot he’s been aiming for. Apparently there’s still a majority of UN delegates that understand that intl peace requires more than a big mouth amd uncontained swagger.
October 17th, 2006 at 5:54 am
Chavez has a bit of the Merdas touch these days, doesn’t he?
October 17th, 2006 at 6:08 am
“The 18-month old government in Montevideo is progressive, serious and sane.”
Cooper, aren’t you a little young to be writing like Max Lerner? He didn’t churn out prose like this until he was in his seventies.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Mark, first of all I have to point out that Chavez’s speech was no more extreme than GWB’s “axis of evil” comments in the same venue or Drooler in Chief Reagan’s description of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” At least Chavez didn’t mean it literally.
Secondly, what’s with the obsession with Chavez? You know from personal experience what will likely follow if and when US proxies eventually take Chavez down. Which side do you want to be on?
October 17th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Snorri:
>> Drooler in Chief Reagan’s description of the
>> Soviet Union as an “evil empire.â€
If you’re looking for a one-liner, that one is pretty good, and a lot closer to the truth than many people were able to admit at the time. Adam Michnik for one is not afraid of using it:
http://www.polishculture-nyc.org/Michnik.htm
This is not to say that Reagan initiatives like Star Wars helped matters.
>> At least Chavez didn’t mean it literally.
In fact, the seriously bizarre thing about Chavez’s speech, if you’ve listened to it, is the literalness of saying the smell of sulfur is still in the air, etc. Talk about demonizing the opposition!
October 17th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Whenever I am reminded of Reagan’s “Evil Empire” rhetoric, the question comes to mind, how does an Evil Empire allow Mikhail Gorbachev come to power? The Soviet Empire was obviously a rotten enterprise, with an abundance of cynical apparatchiks capable of calculated evil, but Humpty Dumpty seems at least as appropriate a metaphor for their system as Darth Vader and the Death Star. There’s a very serious problem with reductionist, primitive theological approaches to one’s real world enemies that assume that the political world can be understood in terms of moral dualism that banishes complexity. (cf. Reinhold Niebuhr, if you want a serious critique of penny ante theo-political thinking, which Comrade Hitchens is currently proving can infect even a rabid secularist.)
Unlike most of the current crowd who invoke his legacy, I believe Reagan himself eventually came to understand the difference between an effective phrase jotted on his 3×5 cards and a more complex reality when he finally sat down with MG.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:57 am
“One day I’d like to know from where is born the tendency to attribute the worst motives to one’s debating partner.”
Marc, is it true you never stereotype or attack those who crticise you? THere are plenty of examples of such examples of such behavior on your part. Why do you play the victim when a smart guy like Ahmed criticises you? It doesn’t offend you if Josh Legere attacks people who attend antiwar rallies as unpatriotic or hating America or Chris Hitchens attacking the motives of antiwar activists of any stripe. Why do you play the victim card here I wonder?
October 17th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
While I am sure that mr Chavez is a terrible man who oppresses the people (and has bad table manners as well) I think something slightly more important happened today that deserves comment.
This morning, at a desk draped with the banner “PROTECTING AMERICA” our dear leader signed the “Torture is good and to hell with Habeus Corpus” bill. Now the unbridled power of the executive is the law of the land. So take that Hugo!
October 17th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Uhm, no Mr. Locicero ,you’re missing the key point, namely that if Chavez had simply put the words he used in the speech into a very ‘civil’ language, he would have been respected for his harsh critiques of American foreign policy, just like Martin Luther King was well received by the NYTimes and Washington Post for criticising American foreign policy in Vietnam. Oh, hang on, he was harrangued by the mainstream and liberal left of his day for the ‘outrageous’ speech he made at Riverside Church…
Hmmm…maybe the anger at Chavez in the US has to do with more than the ‘way’ he made his speech.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
JH>> At least Chavez didn’t mean it literally.
MT> In fact, the seriously bizarre thing about >Chavez’s speech, if you’ve listened to it, is >the literalness of saying the smell of sulfur is >still in the air, etc. Talk about demonizing the >opposition!
This is metaphorical detail, not literalness. The Dub’s handlers probably also didn’t mean his incitement to a “crusade” or calls to rid the universe of “evil” or talk of an “axis of evil” literally, but they certainly did choose this language to exploit some very deep superstitions. I won’t presume to guess what was going on in the sparsely furnished caverns of Ronald Reagan’s brain when he confused Mikhail Gorbachev with Darth Vader, because the truth is probably too scary to contemplate. Chavez, on the other hand, was joking.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Second verse, same as the first. America needs a toady in the security council, and Marc Cooper agrees. Everything else is trivia.
OR
Would you prefer Urugay to Venezuela, but Guatemala to Venezuela as well, or woudl you at least take a democracy like Venezuela over a corrupt banana republic like Guatemala? Do you really want the US to maintain control of the UN?
October 17th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Its actually completely a slander and a falsehood to claim that Venezuela has any close relationship with North Korea, who it condemned in as loud a voice- a nd with more principle, given the US protected AQ Khan network through which NK got its nukes – than the USA.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
A question for reg, I read a lot of Niebuhr a few years back – and what I don’t understand is why he backed politics (the Cold War) that at least seemed absolutely antithetical to his philosophy…kind of like Sartre backing Stalin, but in reverse.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
No Brainers: In today’s News…
This “should” have been a no brainer, if the UN is serious about ever getting anything accomplished, it cannot have Venezuela anywhere near it. Unbelievable that anyone is actually voting for them, yet they are…. hell, that’s even more embarrassin…
October 17th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Mr. Cummings, would you please stop confusing us with facts?
October 17th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
I have no idea what Niebur is about. In fact, the last book I read was Ann Coulter’s “Godless”. I bought it because I felled in luv with her after seeing her on Bill O’Reilly’s show. Maybe you can ask me a question about what laxative to use. Their is something I know much more about.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
reg:
>> There’s a very serious problem with
>> reductionist, primitive theological approaches…”
Yes, the understanding has to go deeper than the 3×5 card, and if it doesn’t, there’s trouble.
Reg, I’m not sure the salient question is how did Gorbachev come to head it all up…it’s more about (as in Michnik’s thumbnail sketch) how the consensus shifted over time to the point that even the apparatchiks did not believe in what they were doing. Indeed, the earlier purges in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia taught the later activists the merit of not challenging the system directly, at least not at first, so as to not provoke a top-down repression.
I think it’s generally accepted that Gorbachev did not know where things were heading, and only intended to encourage moderate reforms.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
” I think it’s generally accepted that Gorbachev did not know where things were heading, and only intended to encourage moderate reforms.”
Gorbachev was what he was, and was obviously improvising and to some extent bumbling, but he was hardly the Emporer of Evil. I’m of the opinion that we’d all be better off if his moderate reforms had succeeded and the process of change in the old USSR had been more of an evolution than a collapse. The fault is, of course, the unbelievably corrupt and cynical dominance of the Brezhnev gang which was more a kleptocracy than any ideological project even remotely akin to “socialism”. But, frankly, I think the notion that even by that point the Soviet Union was the embodiment of what could usefully be called Evil, as opposed to some very familiar “Very Bad” was pretty much self-serving crank ideology. I detest the Soviet system and any variation on “Late Stalinism”, but I know that the worldview of George Kennan was more powerful in undermining their actual capacity for doing evil over the long haul than the fantasies of Curtis LeMay, or for that matter Richard Perle.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Great – some wackjob gets through as “reg” at 2:14 and I’m stuck in “moderation”.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
WHen Gorby makes harsh critiques of American foreign policy, even in a ‘civil’ fashion, they tend to receive no endearing welcome from the media in the US. Whoodathunkit?
October 17th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
JC – the short answer is that Niebuhr’s Cold War liberalism wasn’t perfect, IMHO, but like everything else it has to be seen in the context of the times. I’m far more sympathetic to what I see as the deficiencies of his critique of the U.S. at the inception of the Cold War than I am to those farther left who were apologizing for Stalin or fantasizing about revolution. Niebuhr rejected doctrinaire marxism about the same time he rejected pacifism. He was a political ally of Walter Reuther’s when he was a pastor in Detroit, and they remained in proximate political terrain over the decades. I don’t really get how a critical support for the West in the Cold War was any more a violation of his philosophy than his support for the Allies in WWII. Niebuhr didn’t support imperialism or reaction, although he well knew that one can’t “take sides” in geopolitics and keep one’s hands completely clean of unintended consequences or great power machinations. Niebuhr was an opponent of the Vietnam war, a consistent social democrat in domestic affairs and a friend of human rights wherever. I’m not sure how one could be particularly confused by his general approach to politics as articulated either philosophically or by the empirical record of an actually existing human being with flaws – until I remind myself that you consider Harry Truman to have been a worse menace than Stalin. The difference between Niebuhr and Sartre was that while Niebuhr may arbuably have been credulous about some Cold War designs of the U.S., I believe he was a pragmatic, determined democrat and Sartre was, at least by the sixties, a political fashionista. That’s my impression of Sartre – in all honesty I don’t find him a particularly interesting man and haven’t much read him.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Let me add, as a one-liner, that what I find attractive about Niebuhr is the consistent recognition that even when we’re trying to do the right thing, more or less, God isn’t “on our side”. Big difference between that sensibility, espc. for a man of deep Christian faith, and the kind of insane crap that emanates from the politicized religious fundamentalists from Bush to bin Laden.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
http://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Line-American-Decision-1944-1949/dp/0521627176/sr=1-1/qid=1161123736/ref=sr_1_1/002-7590674-9324053?ie=UTF8&s=books
What’s interesting is the endorsements it’s gotten from Cold War historians…and not only those who agree with her take:
Book Description
In this fresh and challenging study of the origins of the Cold War, Professor Eisenberg traces the American role in dividing postwar Germany. Drawing upon original documentary sources, she explores how U.S. policy makers chose partition and mobilized reluctant West Europeans behind that approach. The book casts new light on the Berlin blockade, demonstrating that the United States rejected United Nations mediation and relied on its nuclear monopoly as the means of protecting its German agenda.
Review
“Drawing the Line is an eminently readable book and it will be a welcome addition to the treasure chest of reseachers, scholars and students of international affairs.” Pam K. Datta, Perspectives
“It is an exceptionally well written and prodigiously researched work.” Thomas Schwartz, The Journal of American History
“Carolyn Eisenberg shatters the central myth at the heart of the origins of the cold war: that the postwar division of Germany was Stalin’s fault. She demonstrates unequivocally that the partition of Germany was `fundamentally an American decision,’ strongly opposed by the Soviets. The implications are enormous.” Kai Bird, The Nation
“…exhaustive and impressive…” David M. Keithly, Politik
“Carolyn Eisenberg’s Drawing the Line is the most comprehensive study now available of U.S. policy towards Germany in the critical 1944-1949 period.” Steven P. Remy, H-Net Reviews
“This is a thorough, beautifully written study; it is unlikely to be superseded.” Loyd E. Lee, Political Science Quarterly
“This book is a remarkable achievement. Its mastery of the complex US politics and diplomacy of the division of Germany and the beginnings of the cold war is truly impressive.” Diethelm Prowe, The International History Review
“…a daring, provocative and challenging book…a must read for anyone interested in post-World War II international history.” Melvyn Leffler, University of Virginia
“…massively documented and unsparing argument that not Russian, but American non-cooperation prevented Germanu unification. Even those who will dissent from the tightly argued case will remain in Eisenberg’s dept for a closely reasoned and provocative monograph that masters some of the most intricate disputes of early Cold War history. This work is a major achievement and major challenge.” Charles Maier, Diplomatic History
“Just when some thought we were approaching a consensus on the reasons why Europe and the United States sunk into nearly a half-century of Cold War, Carolyn Eisenberg forces us to rethink what we thought we knew…Her vast research and grasp of detail make us reconsider the historic events that triggered the Cold War.” Walter LaFeber, Cornell University
October 17th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
I don’t really get how a critical support for the West in the Cold War was any more a violation of his philosophy than his support for the Allies in WWII.
- So you take the Jeanne Kirkpatrick view of the Cold War? Seriously though, I don’t deny that the Soviets were nasty -especially in the early Cold War, but there is not one thing – aside from perhaps the Helsinki programs (which were mostly European) that the West did in the Cold War that is even remotely worth support, on a moral or tactical level. If you can think of one, I’m game.
Niebuhr didn’t support imperialism or reaction, although he well knew that one can’t “take sides†in geopolitics and keep one’s hands completely clean of unintended consequences or great power machinations
- But what seemed clear from Niehbuhr is that one shouldn’t make that devil’s bargain. If one wanted to have clean hands, one didn’t have to take sides, or one could have sided with the people of the world under both yokes…which seems more congruent with what he thought…
Reuther was anti-communist but he admitted later that he was a little “hysterical” about it, and was a truly great labor leader, who may well have been assissnated. He was firmly Anti-Imperialist and was one of the few mainstream labor leaders to oppose the Vietnam war.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
I don’t consider Truman to have been worse than Stalin. To his people, Stalin was far worse. But Truman started it, with his nukes, national security act and hiring tons of Nazis and Fascists. Defend that. Stalin, as even Kissinger and realists who interpreted his behaviour point out, acted as any Russian government would have done in the face of encroaching US power….Keenan et. al misinterpreted his intentions, and/or deliberately did so. Greece is a great example of the US siding with fascists against left guerillas that the Soviets didn’t give a rat’s ass about.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
“I don’t consider Truman to have been worse than Stalin.”
I thought you wrote that a few weeks ago…sorry if I confused you with someone else. I’d say that Niebuhr was congruent with Reuther in both areas where he probably over-reacted as well as in areas where they both stood for social justice. MLKjr considered Niebuhr one of his important influences.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Yeah Bob Gibson, MLKjr was reviled by members of the “liberal left” for making that speech. I’ll never forget when William Sloane Coffin, Walter Reuther and Murray Kempton excoriated King for his inflammatory rhetoric. Oh wait a minute, that was Time magazine and the Washington Post. Oh, well. If Ann Coulter is to be believed they are also part of the left-wing conspiracy against America.
October 17th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
The US on the Security Council concerns me more than Venezuela — this guy Bolton we have there as Ambassador is definitely not born for diplomacy. He is the picture of the Ugly American.
I think all this talk about Venezuela and Chavez is overblown. And much of the mainstream media on Chavez is downright distortion. Chavez simply is no security threat to the U.S. If the U.S. would stop trying to scheme ways with its elitist allies in Venezuela to overthrow Chavez he might have actually been or could be an ally. But when the US paints Hugo into a corner, you can’t blame him for fighting back. Fact is, Hugo, while a big mouth, and a big mouth with some dictator-like tendencies, often comes off as a clown — he is often hitting the right note about the US and its neo-colonialist policies and behaviour around the world. The US govt. is shameful in its relations with the developing world most especially.
October 17th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
I think I once did write here or elsewhere that Truman should be called “America’s Stalin” quoting Paul Buhle.
October 17th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Well, at least he wasn’t “America’s Hugo Chavez”!!!
October 17th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Whatever else may be true about Venezuela they have an elected and popular government with a far stronger claim to democracy than many of the states currently on the security council.
Just wondering if you even bothered to look and see who was on the UNSC before you made that statement. Here’s the list. While I’d give you China, Russia, Qatar and the Congo Republic, how can you expect to make such a statement about Denmark, Greece, France, the UK, Peru, Japan, Slovakia and Tanzania (i.e. more than two thirds of UNSC) without looking silly?
October 17th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Truman as Stalin! That’s perfect: for a nutball.
October 17th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
And in other matters Chavez, as Cooper said shot himself in the crotch and here comes ahmed to defend him and a cast of straw-armed-men the world over. Anything but those dastardly Americans! Oh the those overly emotional foreign females!
October 17th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Isn’t it amazing that such a lather can be worked up over the President of a mid-sized South American state while the inanities of the “Leader of the Free World” go unremarked. But then again our boy-king has the bigotry of low expectations nailed doesn’t he?
October 17th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
“Greece is a great example of the US siding with fascists against left guerillas that the Soviets didn’t give a rat’s ass about.”
Mostly right about that, but the Greek Communist bureaucrats did more damage than any efforts by Churchill or the CIG/CIA to the revolutionary potential that existed in Greece in ‘44-’49 by dutifully internalizing “Comrade” Stalin’s intentions.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Selling out people is one thing. Siding with fascists against them is another. Or to put it differently, do you blame the Soviets for selling out Allende, or the fascists and Americans for snuffing him?
October 17th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
“But when the US paints Hugo into a corner, you can’t blame him for fighting back.”
It’s Amerias fault. Sound familiar? That cold war colonialist, imperialist, fascist, power hungry menace to all good people longing for their freedom throughout the world.
Were to hell do children get this shit? It couldn’t be in our own universities……….could it? God help us……of course not.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
“Anything but those dastardly Americans! Oh the those overly emotional foreign females!”
I think Mark York reveals quite alot about himself through these childish comments. Probably that he has a problematic and distorted idea about women, resulting most likely from a series of romantic failures. Im usually all for free speech on bligs but isnt this dweed banned?
October 20th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
i’ll take chavez over bush/cheney/rumsfeld anyday of the week.
October 26th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Chavez’s speech was not juvenile, I actually read the text and he was right on. If you want
to read something embarrassingly juvenile take a gander at your plea a while back for
C. Hitchens to “come home.” He went back
home to the warm womb of the ex-Trot Neocon Dumb Right a long time ago. He only
made it official in late 2001.
Or reread your silly pieces praising our center-right Mayor failure here in Oakland Jerry Brown. A more faithful servant of the corporate
sector would be hard to find and yes, serious crime is going through the roof here. This clown for Attorney General ! You gotta be kidding. I could go on at length to that stupid
Euston Manifesto, mostly endorsed by Scoop
Jackson Democrats.
I occasionally agree with you but your main function is to piss on anything that seems remotely left or radical. A function that you filled very well as the hatchetman for Madwoman Berry at KPFK.
That’s your right of course but let’s don’t kid us
or yourself about being progressive.
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:16 am
That’s wonderful superb,
—————————————
signature: requip