Yup, I would say that three thousand dead Chileans, purposefully murdered and the one thousand still missing and probably dead would agree.
3 Likes
So, this is supposed to have been a “bad” thing?
In light of the unfolding tragedy there, could someone explain why this was a “bad” thing?
Yeah, the fine details are beyond him. According to Woodward’s book, Trump took issue with the generals’ discussion of strategy in Afghanistan, saying, “You should be killing guys. You don’t need a strategy to kill people.” Which is a totally believable claim considering he said during the debates - twice! - that the US should be secretly retaking cities in Iraq, as if that made any sense. He really obviously does have a child’s understanding of the issues, combined with a sociopath’s concern for others.
4 Likes
Videla. Castelo Branco. Pinochet. Junta Revolucionaria de Gobierno. Armas. The Contras. Noriega. Stroessner. Fujimori. Bordaberry. Etc etc etc.
And that’s just Latin America. I could do similar lists for Africa or Asia or the Middle East.
Also, as a reminder:
Hook’s memo “tells Tillerson that we should do exactly what Russian and Chinese propaganda says we do—use human rights as a weapon to beat up our adversaries while letting ourselves and our allies off the hook,” said Tom Malinowski, who served as an assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor in the administration of former President Barack Obama.
The memo:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000160-6c37-da3c-a371-ec3f13380001
Key quote:
One useful guideline for a realistic and successful foreign policy is that allies should be treated differently – and better – than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies. The classic dilemma of balancing ideals and interests is with regard to America’s allies. In relation to our competitors, there is far less of a dilemma. We do not look to bolster America’s adversaries overseas; we look to pressure, compete with, and outmaneuver them. For this reason, we should consider human rights as an important issue in regard to US relations with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. And this is not only because of moral concern for practices inside those countries. It is also because pressing those regimes on human rights is one way to impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically.
Therefore:
10 Likes
Yeah, that’s been the case until recent history, the problem is that the US is not interested in stability anymore.
Nobody puts it above the US to do this, but in recent years it’s been noticeable that the US has given stability a higher priority than destabilization. That the current administration is uninterested in pursuing renewable energy adoption in favor of fossil fuels and then seriously considered this gives truth to the “imperialist oil grab narrative”
1 Like
This is such a loaded question that even attempting to answer it can so easily backfire.
More like, can you explain what specific goals that are being pursued here that would, if executed faithfully, alleviate suffering and be sustainable when just violating Venezuela’s Sovereignty erases its ability to successfully govern itself without which it cannot possibly climb out of the specific problems it has?
6 Likes
Except that it’s foreign oil and a coup wouldn’t change that. It doesn’t fit the “renewables are hurting coal miners” and “energy independence” narratives.
That’s just the surface spin used to justify actions; it can be easily changed. FOX and Breitbart will do their thing, and then we’ve always been at war with Eastasia once again.
Underneath the spin, it’s strategic control of oil reserves, for both economic and military leverage.
And it isn’t really about maintaining US supply; that has never been under threat. It’s about retaining the ability to restrict supply to others when desired. An obedient puppet government does that just as well as direct control.
China is the world’s #1 oil importer these days, BTW.
3 Likes
Woah there, you’re thinking about this too logically, as if there was any consistency between what is professed to be the goal and the actions taken to achieve said goal.
When we are unable to understand motivation from such a fractured narrative we should be able to rely on the expected or real world outcome to judge intent, it’s the only decent thing to do.
Edited: A word.
1 Like
Because, as bad as things are in Venezuela now, and as bad as they’re likely to get under Maduro’s gang of idiots and criminals, I’m absolutely sure that a coup supported by Trump admin would have gone even worse. Everything else aside, it’s not as if they could find actual competent people to support – or any actually competent plotters wanted to have anything at all to do with Trump and co.
5 Likes
To be fair, if you’re thinking about this at all you’re thinking about it too logically.
1 Like
Not so much, no.
The US constantly promotes civil unrest in disobedient nations; see Syria for the most obvious current example. Stability is not the key factor; subservience to US interests is.
Because of the nature of the interests of the US ruling class, that usually means that we get support for right-wing governments and subversion of anything left-wing. Democracy or dictatorship is irrelevant.
But they’ll occasionally allow a nominally-left dictator to survive so long as he keeps the money flowing to the relevant corporations.
6 Likes
This. Very much this.
Just ensuring that Venezuela’s oil is traded in dollars is valuable enough to the US without worrying about having access or control over it. Venezuela published it’s trading prices in Yuan in 2017 and has been experimenting with it’s own cryptocurrency in order to get around US economic sanctions. These actions, even if partially successful, would be a threat to not just US influence around the world but it’s economic stability.
6 Likes
6 Likes
(And Yemen)
3 Likes
Over 600 failed attempts!
4 Likes
The US cares about INstability. It’s much easier to achieve and it’s typically all that’s necessary to achieve geopolitical goals. Hates democracy (because it ends up meaning national resources go to nation instead of US corps). Prefers dictators as a foil to democracy, especially neoliberal ones.
3 Likes
BTW, the last half of the article reflects the narrative the oppositional Venezuelan 1% tells in it’s media. That’s were we get our version of reality from. Most of it is an inversion of the truth. This is obvious if you look at the last 25 years of Venezuelan and Latin American history. The level of fantasy means it shouldn’t really pass the giggle test – yet this is the context in which we assess foreign policy and plan regime change(!) Canada, and the UK join the US in wanting to overthrow a democracy which is much more grass roots than ours. The Chavistas were elected after the people WE support ran the economy into the ground with IMF loans. There was no bread. They shot people in the street. This was called, Caracazo. Ultimately the plutocrats lost the elections and haven’t won since. But from the moment the Chavistas were elected, they began economic sabotage, coups, terrorism, etc. This is what our governments support.
3 Likes
