will talk about and what they will resolve. If this is a democratic meeting--and I have to presume that it is--then any one of them can introduce a topic, or a resolution, for the group of presidents to consider. These
are presidents. They are not mere diplomats. They hold the sovereign reins of government in their countries, and nobody outside of their country can dictate to them what they will say or do--not Insulza, not Obama, no one.
Just imagine the Sec General of the UN telling Obama what he can say, what resolutions he can introduce, or how to vote at the UN. The Sec General wouldn't even do that to a mere diplomat. To a head of state, it would be unthinkable. Advice, maybe yes--informal advice. Dictation, no.
But since opinion about the U.S. lifting the embargo on Cuba is so overwhelming in Latin America, possibly Insulza is playing a political game here. He is saying this (Cuba is not on the agenda) at Obama's request, maybe? To please and to accommodate the new U.S. head of state, which has exercised untoward power at the OAS in the past? BUT, he expects it to come up, and perhaps wants it to come up--just not from him. And, at that point, he can't do anything about it. Presidents of countries will do what they please.
The Cuba issue is more than the Cuba issue--much more. It is a basic issue of sovereignty for all these countries, that the U.S. has been dictating policy on Cuba for many decades. And most of them have finally stood up for themselves and their country's sovereignty and opened their own relations with Cuba, as has much of the world. It is totally, totally absurd that the U.S. has normal diplomatic and trade relations with China--a far worse dictatorship than Cuba, if Cuba can be called a dictatorship at all--and yet shuns and punishes Cuba, as if it were a pariah like North Korea. (I think Cuba is more like a benign monarchy--and quite a bit like England--with democracy at every level except head of state, who reins by common, informal consent but not be voting.)
In any case, whether or not the U.S. gets to dictate what will be talked about by the presidents of all of these countries will be interesting to see. It may be that Latin America needs to abandon the OAS, as it had to when the U.S./Colombia bombed/raided Ecuadoran territory last March (2008). They took that near war, and big controversy, to the all-Latin American Rio Group, specifically because the U.S. is not a member and could not obstruct the discussion. And, when the U.S. (Bushwhacks) tried to start a civil war in Bolivia, in September 2008, the newly formed South American common market, UNASUR (the U.S. is not a member, but Cuba is) acted quickly, decisively and unanimously to back the Evo Morales government.
Obama is going to have a hard time explaining his policy on Cuba to these
very popular, very assertive and very much allied leftist leaders--the great majority--especially when even the few remaining centrist and even rightwing leaders recognize Cuba. Obama's policy is irrational. It has no good explanation. And U.S. diplomats and State Dept. spokespersons just babble when they are asked about it. They have nothing coherent to say.
A word about this biofuels thing with Lulu. You should read what Food First has to say about biofuels replacing food production! It is by no means a "green" policy, as the U.S. State Dept. spokesman said the other day, in repeatedly citing the Bushwhack deal with Lulu on biofuels as the "new" green cooperation with Latin America--the only example he could think of. For Lulu, it is a political/economic issue. He has fought hard at the WTO in defense of third world countries, on unfair U.S. ag and other imports policy. He wants Brazil to be able to import ag products to the U.S. And he made a bad decision. The Bushwhack biolfuels deal will encroach on the Amazon, and it is adamantly opposed by indigenous organic food farmers and environmental groups. It is crazy to convert farmlands to biofuels in a world facing mass starvation from food shortages, and crazy to threaten forests in a world facing the END of the planet's ecosystem from global warming. Short-term thinking by Lulu.
Lulu, however, never did allow this issue to succeed in "dividing and conquering" the South American left--as seemed like a possibility at the time. He made the deal with the Bushwhacks. But he did not bow to Bushwhack pressure on "isolating" Chavez, for instance--in fact, he strengthened his ties to Chavez and to the South American left. He has been a solid backer of Chavez, Morales, Correa, Kirchner and others.
I found it very curious that the Obama spokesman kept citing this deal. For one thing, it's old news. For another, it was a Bushwhack project, not an Obama initiative. What are going to be Obama's initiatives? I don't have a single solitary clue. "Free trade" with Colombia? Right. More "war on drugs"? Uh-huh. As Inca Kola has just shown, Bolivia has never done more drug interdictions than AFTER they threw the DEA out of Bolivia.* The U.S. "war on drugs" is a corrupt, failed, murderous scam, to militarize Latin America, and spy on and interfere with Latin America. And that's all I've picked up--warmed over Bushwhack ideas. And those are not likely to endear Obama to the new leftist leadership of Latin America. Plus, he's wrong on Cuba.
-----
*(
http://www.borev.net/2009/04/titulares_asininity_35.htmlhttp://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2009/04/evos-bolivia-is-combatting-narcos.html )
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
