You know what's fun? Trying to explain to some street kid in a foreign land exactly why half of all Americans think that Iraq blew up the World Trade Center. He'll say something like, "Look, I dropped out of school in the second grade and huff nitrous oxide daily, so how is it that I know more about this than your crazy snowbilly vice presidential candidate?" And then you just shrug because what can you say?
Anyhow this weekend the generally accepted storyline in Washington is that Bolivia and Venezuela booted their US ambassadors, not for backing violent secessionists, but rather as a cynical ploy to distract the dumb rubes from all the problems or something. Adam Isacson offers a nice summary of the weird conspiracy theory "conventional wisdom" :
"Don't believe for a moment that either expulsion had anything to do with an imminent danger of aggression from a waning U.S. administration already in way over its head in the Middle East and with Russia. What we have here are two leaders badly in need of an external threat to rally their domestic bases at a volatile political moment."Right, of course. It had nothing to do with US aggression. That makes tons of sense, considering:
- The US ambassador to Bolivia denied he was even meeting with separatist leaders at all until camera crews caught him sneaking around with them in the middle of the night.
- Nobody knew that US Special Forces were even operating in Bolivia until one of them got arrested waving a gun around a Santa Cruz whorehouse, then the embassy claimed diplomatic immunity and sprung him from jail before the questioning began.
- The Venezuelan government has released recorded phone conversations from "current and former military leaders" discussing a plot.
- Evo Morales just beat a recall referendum with a rocking 68% of the vote, so this would be an effort to distract the country from...his own popularity?
- Everything happening in Santa Cruz today is a poor man's carbon copy of everything that happened in Caracas six years ago, when Chavez was the one being taken out in US-backed coup.
- This is all happening on the 35th anniversary of another US-backed Latin American coup you may have heard of.
So to recap, Chavez and Morales conspired with their own opposition media to make it look like US officials were engaging in hilarious, embarrassing activities involving insurrection and prostitution in order to have an excuse to bolster their already ridiculously high approval ratings, because really, that theory makes the most sense. Now let's see how many times it gets repeated in the next few days--you may even need to use your toes for all the counting.
Update 1: Oh, and if that Isacson quote sounds familiar, it's because you already read it in yesterday's New York Times. Simon Romero lifted it from Isacson's blog and made it look like it came from an interview. Lazy, lazy little Simon Romero.
Comments (3)
We're going to have to disagree on this one. I was angry when I wrote that post, and I remain angry at what I think was a very stupid, counterproductive move by the Morales and Chavez governments. Upending the chessboard is not a way to win the game.
Evo played right into the hands of the worst people in the policy debate here - the people who, for instance, were itching to de-certify Bolivia despite the evidence, and finally had their reason to do so this week.
And I'm wondering whether the Bolivian and Venezuelan governments in fact desired to have this outcome. Whether they actually preferred to have the drug warriors and the Otto Reich crowd - much more attractive enemies than conciliatory old Tom "I'll meet with Evo at 5 AM if he wants" Shannon - climbing back into the driver's seat, and even congressional Democrats meekly supporting moves to isolate Bolivia.
The expulsions are a very serious step, and the Bolivians' statement that they would invite a new ambassador after the US elections seemed to indicate that they didn't realize that. This is a major, likely long-term, cutoff in contact between the United States and these countries. Without an ambassador, U.S. embassies are reduced to processing visas and perhaps coordinating whatever dirty tricks the newly emboldened hard-liners wish to carry out. And don't think that a new ambassador will be returning soon, for instance if Obama wins. PNG'ing is a big deal.
And being more aggressive against Washington doesn't help them "bolster their popularity" - did I say that? - in fact it might lower their national popularity a bit. What it does, though, is, in Karl Rove's language, "rally the base." The base that, for instance, had such a poor voter turnout in Venezuela's December referendum. That's what I wrote.
I wonder if we have a larger disagreement about whether the United States is constitutionally capable of playing a positive role in Latin America. I still think it is. If I didn't think so, I'd be recommending that US embassies be shuttered all over the hemisphere. But I think it's more complicated than that, that there are people on the inside who want U.S. policy to be less cruel and short-sighted, but who need Evo and Hugo to give them more to work with if they are to outweigh the Neanderthals.
Do you disagree? Do you believe that there is no such thing as "moderates" and "hard-liners," with powerful disagreements, within the US government and the US Congress? Do you believe that Washington is condemned to one Jeane Kirkpatrick / Elliott Abrams line, across the board, that actually sees Bolivia's awful recent bloodshed as something to encourage? Do you really mean to imply that Goldberg, while certainly not the right guy to be in Bolivia right now, was actually going that far? (And by the way there are US Special Forces in nearly every country in the region.)
I admit to feeling defeated and deflated after Evo's announcement last week. It sucked the oxygen away from those who have been urging the USG not to take the bait, to seek dialogue and contact, and not to believe the more ridiculous conspiracies. It will not be easy to steer things back in that direction.
But I suppose that's what we'll be trying to do, while drinking only the kool-aid we make ourselves. (It's very refreshing.)
Posted by Adam Isacson
|
September 17, 2008 10:49 PM
Posted on September 17, 2008 22:49
BTW, someone badly needs to pry the Kool-Aid jar out of Isacson's hands. That "analysis" was the worst thing I've ever seen on his blog, and his agreement with that "Boli-Nica" nutcase in the comments was no improvement. Your analysis of it was much better, and funnier to boot.
Posted by QueenBina
|
September 14, 2008 6:11 PM
Posted on September 14, 2008 18:11
Simon Romero--Jayson Blair with a Spanish accent.
When are they going to fire this non-reporter?
Posted by QueenBina
|
September 14, 2008 6:02 PM
Posted on September 14, 2008 18:02