While President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and the new President of Colombia, Manuel Santos, met in Santa Marta, Colombia, last Tuesday and agreed to normalize relations after a fierce diplomatic fight, there are no indications that such détente is in the cards for Venezuela and the United States. Washington, it now appears, may not even want to maintain ambassadorial relations. This could be a significant turn towards the worse for the United States’ already rocky relationship with its third-largest oil supplier.
Back in June the Obama Administration announced the appointment of Larry Palmer, President and CEO of the Inter-American Foundation, to replace the current ambassador in Caracas. The Venezuelans gave their initial approval. But then came the U.S. Senate confirmation process. Although there were no major problems in Palmer’s testimony before the Senate on July 27, Palmer was subsequently asked to respond to questions from Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Palmer’s answers to these questions were presumed to be for the Senators and not for the public, but a week later they were posted on Senator Lugar’s website. Unfortunately Palmer wrote some things that a candidate for ambassador would not say publicly about the host country. He referred to “morale” in the Venezuelan armed forces as “considerably low” and to “clear ties between the Venezuelan government and Colombian guerrillas.” There were a number of other remarks about Venezuela that most governments would consider quite unfriendly or even insulting.
Alan K. Henrikson is director of diplomatic studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “While we would expect candid answers to queries from a Senator that were supposed to be confidential, the publication of such comments — considered hostile and demeaning by the host country — is extremely unusual,” he said in a telephone interview. “Many countries would not accept as ambassador, someone who made such comments while being considered for appointment.”
It didn’t take long for this to be all over the news, especially in Venezuela. President Chávez announced on Aug. 8 that Palmer was not acceptable, and appealed to President Obama to appoint another ambassador. According to congressional sources here, the Lugar questions to Palmer and the leak of his answers is seen as a “set up from the right.” But there is no indication so far that the Obama Administration is going to replace Palmer with another choice.
Washington is a city of diplomatic intrigue, and there is an interesting “whodunit” aspect to the diplomatic row. Was this leak simply the work of Lugar’s office, or was it done in collaboration with officials in the State Department who wanted to torpedo the nomination?
Whatever insider game is going on, the sabotage of this appointment is yet another clear indication that Washington is not ready, or willing, to even try to normalize relations with Venezuela. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s gratuitous public insults to Venezuela –- widely condemned when Chávez engages in the same behavior towards the United States –- are another indicator that high-level officials here do not want to normalize relations.
What the Obama Administration doesn’t seem to realize – or perhaps care about – is that this will also alienate most other governments in the region. The Administration’s strategy is almost always oriented towards the media, and they may succeed in convincing most of the media that any fight with Venezuela must be the fault of Chávez. The Washington Post editorial board wasted no time in hysterically blaming Venezuela for the problem. But every Latin American diplomat will see -– given the offensive character of Palmer’s written statements -– that Venezuela cannot accept this nomination. Like the Obama Administration’s efforts to help the coup government in Honduras gain international legitimacy over the past year; its continuation of the Bush Administration’s trade sanctions against Bolivia; and its expanded military presence at seven military bases in Colombia and now in Costa Rica, this diplomatic fight will sow distrust and further erode what is left of Washington’s credibility in the hemisphere.
This article was also published at The Guardian.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He has written numerous research papers on economic policy, especially on Latin America and international economic policy. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000) and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also co-writer of Oliver Stone’s current documentary, “South of the Border,” now playing in theaters
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.