On March 7 Obama signed an EO declaring Venezuela a national security threat to the U.S. and personally sanctioning seven officials.
Look, that’s all nasty stuff, but how does it threaten America’s security? It has never been American policy to regard every authoritarian state as a security threat, and it has often been policy to support them. Venezuelan is allied with Cuba, but neither is a threat. Venezuela is struggling with the effects of falling oil prices, it’s weakened, it’s in no shape to threaten anyone, and Cuba’s even worse off.
Declaring a nation a national security threat just lets the US government impose sanctions and, like this order does, freeze assets. It’s not necessarily intended as a commentary on the actual threat the country is to the US.
True. The only way Venezuela is a threat is because they are trying (or at least tried) to organize the latin american nations together into a bloc that was independent of US influence. They tried creating a bank to rival the IMF and WB, no idea if that ever got anywhere.
You’re leaving some key words out of the OP. It says Venezuela is a threat to “the national security and foreign policy” of the U.S. I would say Venezuela is certainly a problem to the foreign policy of the US, as we tend not to like countries that repress their own people and encourage others to do the same.
Framing a debate about US foreign policy toward Venezuela around verbiage used in an Executive Order is probably missing the major issue, however. Should the U.S. apply sanctions to Venezuelan officials who, according to sources like UN Human Rights Commission, were involved in covering up serious and widespread abuses of human rights?
Hell, yes, I support keeping those brutes out of the U.S. and freezing their bank accounts in the US. Does anyone here disagree and think these authoritarians shouldn’t pay a penalty for beating and possibly torturing peaceful protesters, locking up journalists, and perhaps even ordering live ammunition to be used against marchers?
ETA: any questions about Maduro calling these sanctions an “imperialist threat?” No? Nothing?
Actually, that exact phrase with all the words in your quote is in the OP. But note that it doesn’t say “or”, it says “and”. So you don’t get to pick just one and say “See, it’s OK”.
At any rate, I do think it’s silly to try and parse this EO as if every word in it were actually meaningful. Obama wants to be able to put sanctions on V, and those are the words he thinks he needs to use.
I don’t think anyone is going to argue that Venezuela could destroy the United States. But Venezuela obviously has the capacity to harm the United States if it wished to.
But I disagree with President Obama’s Executive Order. None of the issues he mentions serve as justification for declaring Venezuela is a threat to the United States. They are all issues of Venezuelan domestic policy and have no realistic impact on other countries.
From now on, until this Order is rescinded, average Americans should be very circumspect in their everyday dealings with Venezuelans, and carefully guard their tongues when discussing state secrets if they notice a Venezuelan is in the room.
You phrased it better than I did: the “magic words” used in the EO do not accurately reflect Obama’s power under the IEEPA to sanction countries for things tht include gross violations of human rights. Getting hung up on those few words misses the point, just like the bad comedian asking where the “oval” comes from in the product Ovaltine, since the container is round, etc.
you and I both know that no country is so unidimensional as to apply sanctions on all possible countries for some reason because sanctions were applied to one country for some reason. Saudi Arabia is a very friendly country to the U.S. even though they have a horrible human rights record. Venezuela goes to extreme lengths not to be friendly with us, and has a poor human rights record. But you knew that already, didn’t you?
If “Some reason” is “human rights abuses” on both sides of the equation, then “unidimensional” is the same as “not a hypocrite”
Yes, that’s kind of my point - Saudi human rights abuses are, to be frank, orders of magnitude worse than Venezuela’s. So "we tend not to like countries that repress their own people " is pure, unadulterated bullshit (in the technical sense). You “tend to” like them just fine.
It would be far less disingenuous to say “We like countries that like us, and we don’t like countries that don’t like us”. But then you knew that already, didn’t you?
I literally wrote that we “tend” not to like such countries is absolutely accurate. Pointing out exceptions - and there are more than just KSA - doesn’t alter the dictionary definition of “tend.” If you want to identify the bullshit in this thread, how about taking my statement, which is generally true, and trying to reinterpret it to mean that the United States is unjustified in opposing human rights violations in one country because it doesn’t do so in some others? Perhaps you would also be in favor of lifting sanctions on North Korea because the United States doesn’t sanction Jordan for its restrictions on free press?
Oh, I disagree. I think those protesters and journalists (that is to say, reactionary traitors who wanted to reinstate the bad old days of oligarchy) got exactly what they deserved. It’s a pity they didn’t get their comeuppance sooner and sharper, but better late than never.
I’m solidly on the Chavista side but I have plenty of criticisms of Maduro on the economic front. One thing I don’t criticize him for is the crackdown on these yahoos, and if I ever had the good fortune to meet him or one of his associates I’d treat them to dinner and drinks.
Ok, which is pretty much the reaction from the governments of Russia, Syria, Cuba, and Iran. Allying yourself with good company against the criticisms of imperialists like Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Watch, Canada and the EU. Keep fighting the good fight, etc.
I’ve never pretended to be anything other than a big fan of the Cuban government, nor have I ever pretended to have much respect (or for bourgeois-liberal conceptions of human rights in general), so you do realize you’re not telling me anything I don’t know?
Cuba (of course), Russia, Iran and Syria are on the right side for them. Good for them. And congratulations to Maduro for fighting fire with fire. When you’re in a nest of vipers, sometimes you need to step on their heads, not give them milk and cookies.
I had no illusions about your own views I said that more for the benefit of others who may mistakenly think that there’s an actual debate among non-authoritarian countries on which side to support. As it stands, the civilized world is pretty well aligned against Venezuela here.