In what way are they “orders of magnitude” worse? I don’t think you’re basing that on statistics, are you? If so, what statistics?
Anyway, this thread is stupid. The President and none of his advisers believe that Venezuela is a threat to the national security of the United States. But the law requires he use certain verbiage to enforce sanctions, it’s as simple as that. It’s a term of law and doesn’t reflect genuine policy positions.
The decision to sanction isn’t based on mechanistic action, it’s based on geopolitics and international relations. Iran has a bad human rights record as well, so should that mean we don’t negotiate with them on their nuclear programme? That we don’t offer some degree of sanctions relief as a bargaining chip? The Soviet Union and Russia today have spotty human rights records, as does China, as does Vietnam or Thailand.
Enacting sanctions isn’t akin to enforcing the law, government has a duty to arrest and prosecute criminals in accordance with statutes. Sanctions on the other hand are a tool of the State in its foreign relations and cannot be used in a vacuum, but only in the context of the broader relationship between two states. Venezuela is corruptly run and is soon to collapse economically because of an imbecile named Hugo Chavez being succeeded by an even stupider lackey of his, but it’s also a country that is belligerently anti-American and does things all throughout the region that are to our detriment. We’re damn sure going to treat them differently than Saudi Arabia which often acts in our interests, or China or Russia who are major powers and quite simply have to be dealt with differently.
As it is the sanctions against Venezuela are minor, and they’ve slapped minor things on us before too.
For crying out loud, show me one article on americanconservative.com that says that Obama made a smart foreign policy decision. They represent the small isolationist branch of the Republican Party. It’s like saying “even Mother Jones opposed Bush and the Iraq War!” Well, knock me over with a feather.
In some ways, perhaps. (In others he was downright silly. Halloween a symbol of American cultural imperialism?! Lighten up, Hugo!) His “sow the oil” policy (invest oil revenue in social infrastructure) was a pretty good idea (when oil prices were high). If the social programs have a mixed record it is probably because of corruption, which certainly is not something the Chavistas introduced to a political environment previously pristine. Fighting neoliberalism was a very good idea and more developing nations should follow that example.
Probably a serious problem, could be worse (and probably has been worse, in Venezuela’s history). The Democracy Index classifies Venezuela as a “hybrid regime,” but at least it’s not an “authoritarian regime” like Cuba (which is ranked as distinctly less authoritarian than Saudi Arabia, BTW).
Do something about it? International sanctions should be reserved, IMO, for those rare situations where the injustice is glaring and the sanctions might actually make a difference, like Apartheid South Africa. This is not one of those situations.
In any case, if we’re going to let human-rights considerations play a role in foreign policy, then we ought to be applying a consistent standard across the board. If Venezuela has a better human-rights record than Saudi Arabia (it does), then we should be friendlier to Venezuela than to Saudi Arabia.
Ravenman, and Martin Hyde, you will, I hope, agree, at least in principle, that any nation should have socialism if socialism is what the majority of its people really want? That that is a legitimate choice that the voters should get to make, and should get to have realized, and that any non-electoral opposition or interference in that decision is illegitimate?
I find this comment deeply offensive, and demand that Hector_St_Clare’s account be suspended and that he be detained and sanctioned for this hateful…wait, what? Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that Hector_St_Clare has the right to hold and express any opinion he has?
Damn! I would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for those meddling bourgeois-liberal conceptions of human rights!
Wrong. TAC is definitely on the noninterventionist right (Larison even more so), but they were extremely critical of the Bush ‘Freedom Agenda’, to the extent they endorsed the Democratic Party in the 2006 elections purely on foreign policy basis. Believe it or not, some people have the capacity to be consistent in their opposition to exporting “Omg Freedom!!!” whether it’s done by a Republican or a Democrat.
No, but a large part of the Swedish government and populace would like to, and have cancelled military supply contracts as a result. Contrast that with America.
No. You just used it as the only justification in your first post.
Facile argument. Using “tend” doesn’t change the fact that it was the reasoning you gave in your first post - no mention there of the nuances of economics or realpolitik.
I responded to the content of your first post. Don’t blame me if you decided to ditch political nuance for America The Good Rah-Rah jingoism in it.
You have a steely grasp of what constitutes Rightism, that’s for sure. Putin is Centrist. Tell you what - you can call him a Rightist when Gazprom is completely publicly owned.
Many of which were Centrist or Leftist.
I didn’t say he was left. I said he was as RW as Stalin, who was as Left as my right testicle. Leftists don’t genocide peasants.
I don’t think it’s gotten quite to the level of outright sanctions. Yet. Certainly all kinds of pressure should be put on the Govt. of Brazil, but sanctions basically is throwing your hands up in the air and saying “Nothing to be done for you fuckers” and I don’t think Venezuela is quite there yet.
And if you care so much about what Amnesty International has to say, are you also behind international sanctions on America?
People can legitimately vote for a socialist government. But a government that institutes repression, jail, beatings and even torture against those who hold different political views? No, elections don’t justify that, no more than re-electing Bush in 2004 legitimizes Ahu Graib.
OK, you’re right, that was a bit of useless rhetoric. But I still wouldn’t call Stalin a Leftist. He pissed all over the idealism of Lenin and the other true Leftist precursors of his dictatorship.
Well, Lenin and Trotsky, while certainly far more idealistic than Stalin, were plenty repressive and undemocratic in their own way, weren’t they? They dissolved the Constituent Assembly after it met for one day. They came to power on the slogan “All power to the Soviets!” but the Soviets were soon reduced to instruments of Party rule. And then there’s the way they reacted to the Kronstadt Rebellion.
We have to face it: Leftist politics does not necessarily imply respect for democracy or human rights. It can, but it needn’t. There are too many examples of repressive self-ID’d leftists to dismiss them all as aberrations or perversions of the true message.
The problem with Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin is they placed theory above reality. They were so convinced of the ideal state they were trying to achieve that they were willing to sacrifice millions of people to achieve it. A person with less faith in the ends would have been more restrained in what means they used.
That’s why the true war for civilization is not between left and right, it’s between moderates and radicals. The color of the radical’s coat makes little difference.
You might want to reconsider or at least reword that. Bear in mind that every single political change worth making in the past 400 years was made, or first urged, by “radicals” by the standards of the time. Suffragettes were radicals. Abolitionists were radicals. The members of the Continental Congress were radicals. The British who made the Glorious Revolution of 1688 were radicals. And don’t get me started on Zionists.
“The radicals hack out the trail and clear the site. The progressives build the cabins and the fireplaces, the liberals arrive when the hot showers have been installed.”