"Lawmakers, 'Experts' Spin Tales of Iranian Terror in Latin America"

Check out my latest piece for Inter Press Service on attempts by congressmen and career militarists posing as dispassionate experts to cast Iran's relations with Latin America as a "clear and present danger" to the United States.

About that assassination plot

For  years, U.S. hawks have insisted that Iran and its alleged proxy force Hezbollah are nefariously building up ties with governments and criminal organizations across Latin America, including drug cartels.

If the official story about the alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington is true, and the Iranian government indeed reached out to a used car salesman in Texas to get in touch with these cartels, then obviously its ties to said cartels are, well, a bit overblown. And as I write for Inter Press Service, if the official story is false, then the dire threat purportedly posed by Iran's dealings in Latin America has not materialized like promised.

Tool of American imperialism insufficiently pro-American

Like the United Nations, which is supposed to oppose its members attacking each other in wars of aggression but let the United States invade Iraq without so much as a stern non-binding condemnation, the Organization of American States (OAS) is more often than not a tool of American imperialism than a foe. But, like the UN, serving as a tool of its most powerful, wealthy member is not enough for some politicians, who will (grand)stand for nothing less than complete subservience to the goal of U.S. hegemony.

Earlier today, House Republicans lambasted the OAS at a hearing held by the Foreign Affairs Committee, voting to block U.S. payments to the multilateral body. U.S. support for the OAS is "hurting the people of Latin America," Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) said, according to excerpts posted by the Center for International Policy. "There is a better way to support Latin America, and that is..." -- come on, you know it -- "to pass free trade agreements."

"Let's not continue to fund an organization that's bent on destroying democracy in Latin America," Mack added, noting the case of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, who was overthrown in a military coup. "[I]t was the OAS who was helping Zelaya, who by the way was instigating the real coup in Honduras by trying to take over that country and trying to take away the right of its citizens to elect a president."

"Let's not continue to fund an organization that's bent on destroying democracy in Latin America," Mack added.

Mack could of course be dismissed as a raving idiot -- and he of course is. But he is, unfortunately, a raving idiot who chairs the House subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. Let's go over that again: he's a chairman. Someone trusts this man with a gavel. And, even more unfortunately, don't kid yourself -- this is the best the U.S. political system can do.

Here's the thing about Honduras, though: while I don't much care about Manuel Zelaya, or any politician for that matter, I do care -- and please don't groan -- about blatant bullshit being passed off as the truth. And the truth is that Zelaya, far from "trying to take away the right of [Honduras'] citizens to elect a president," was seeking to hold a non-binding referendum on whether his country should have a constitutional convention to revise a document crafted by its previous military dictatorship. If the referendum had been approved, Honduras could have, but would not have been legally bound to, hold said convention, where delegates could have -- potentially -- voted to remove the provision that forbids presidents from serving two consecutive terms.

It's all a bit confusing, yes, but a lot more fact-y.

Zelaya, meanwhile, was not running for reelection, as he was legally barred from doing so. Had the referendum gone forward and been passed, and assuming a convention was held that removed the presidential term limits, Zelaya could run again if he wanted at some point in the future. This would not, however, be akin to taking away Hondurans' right to vote, but could in fact be see as expanding their right to vote by allowing them to reelect a former president if they should so choose.

But Mack didn't even utter the stupidest thing that was said at the hearing. That honor was left to fellow Florida Republican David Rivera (it's not secession, I know that, but what do you call it when you forcibly require a state to leave the union?). Courtesy the Center for International Policy are these two nuggets of congressional wisdom:

• “It kind of reminds me of that scene in Animal House where the college pledges, pledging the fraternity, as part of the ceremony to become a member of the fraternity you have to get paddled, and every time he gets paddled he says, ‘Please, sir, may I have another.’"

• “How much longer are we going to say to the OAS, ‘Please, sir, may I have another?’ I understand a little bit about Stockholm Syndrome, where the hostage becomes enamored with their persecutor. And I don’t know if that’s going on with this administration or some who support involvement in the OAS, but maybe it is.”

Animal House, folks. I don't have the transcript, but presumably he worked in a reference to Big Daddy and Old School during questioning.

As Jonathan Schwarz often notes, the hardest part about analyzing members of the political class is figuring out whether they're wicked, evil liars are just really that stupid. Having spent my fair share of time interviewing members of Congress, I wouldn't dismiss out of hand that they are just stupid. But then stupid and evil go together like cookies and milk.

The State Dept.'s case against military spending

At a State Department press briefing I attended this afternoon, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela thoroughly debunked the argument for increased military spending in the Americas, pointing out there is little need for more weapons systems at a time when the continent as a whole is at peace.

“[E]very country has the sovereign right to purchase arms for its national defense,” Valenzuela noted, and all countries “have a right to also modernize their equipment.” But possessing the right to purchase arms is not the same as having a need to do so, he argued:

"[T]here's been a trend in the Latin American region for -- to a significant decline in arms expenditures as conflicts between countries have waned as a possibility, with the signing of agreements that have resolved long-standing, in many cases -- like between Argentina and Chile or between Ecuador and Peru -- long-standing border disagreements and that kind of thing.

So the overall need for additional expenditures on weaponry is definitely going down. And what we certainly encourage, and all of the countries encourage, is that governments pay much more attention to social expenditures and to trying to improve the standards of living of their -- of their peoples. And I think there's a consensus in the region that in a continent that is essentially at peace, that there really is no need for these kinds of large expenditures."

If you're passingly familiar with American foreign policy and the average State Department official's capacity for self-awareness, you have probably ascertained by now that those remarks are of course not intended to apply to the United States, which faces the specter of Canadian beer to its North and the existential threat of Spanish-speaking Hispanics to its South. No, rather the assistant secretary for whatever-the-hell's comments were directed at Venezuela, which has been circumventing a U.S. ban on weapons purchases by buying arms from Russia.

My prejudices up front: I'm no fan of the buffoonish Hugo Chavez and his brand of centrally planned state socialism, nor do I think any government should really be spending its citizens' money on guns and ammo when it can't even keep the lights on. But I think it's useful to point out that Venezuela is being criticized for purchasing up to $5 billion in arms from Russia – a sizable number, sure, but less than one-fourth of the amount Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama increased Pentagon spending by this year alone. What Chavez is planning to spend on arms is also roughly equivalent to the value of the weapons the U.S. military simply lost in Iraq. And for context, according to the World Bank Venezuela dedicates just over 1 percent of its gross domestic product to military spending, compared to the U.S.'s more than 4 percent.

The amount the U.S. government spends on its armed forces – and on occupying two foreign nations – also dwarfs the amount it dedicates to social services. Meanwhile, like the rest of the Americas the United States faces no real threat of foreign invasion – sorry Tom Tancredo, immigrants don't count – and yet . . .

Not to say I told you so...

Back in September 2008, I wrote a piece for Inter Press Service examining the proposed policies towards Latin America offered by both John McCain and Barack Obama. What did I find?

WASHINGTON, Sep 3 (IPS) - With an election to replace an immensely unpopular president just weeks away, Republican nominee John McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama have both sought to distance themselves from the record of George W. Bush - but when it comes to Latin America, neither candidate promises a major break with the policies of the last eight years.

From maintaining the embargo against Cuba to expanding efforts to fight the war on drugs in Mexico and Colombia, McCain and Obama support most aspects of current U.S. policy toward Latin America. Indeed, outside of their shared pledge to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, there is little to suggest that either candidate would overhaul the Bush administration's approach to the region.

To be fair, though he isn't the progressive messiah some of his most feverish supporters once claimed he would be -- and the more delusional amongst them claim he is -- Obama has largely fulfilled the Latin America agenda he outlined during the campaign, minus that whole closing Guantanamo thing. Indeed, in a recent analysis of Obama's actual policy toward Latin America since taking office, "More Continuity Than Change," IPS' DC Bureau Chief Jim Lobe observes that, "Nearly one year after his inauguration, hopes that President Barack Obama would bring fundamental changes to U.S. relations with Latin American have faded badly":

[D]espite a promising start with Obama's appearance and pledge to pursue "engagement based on mutual respect" at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad last April, his administration has fumbled a number of issues in ways that have contributed to what appears to be the growing disillusionment.

Most recently, the administration abruptly reversed its demand – along with that of all of the Latin American states - that [Honduran President Manuel] Zelaya, who was ousted in a military coup d'etat last June be reinstated before the November elections. And the U.S. failed to consult and reassure its sister nations in advance about a new, 10-year accord with Colombia that gives Washington access to seven military bases around the country.

Don't call it a sellout, it was obvious for years.

When is a coup a coup?

The Center for International Policy's Adam Isacson, who has been chronicling the Obama administration's efforts to station U.S. troops on bases throughout Colombia, highlights this revealing exchange from earlier this month between a reporter and State Department spokesman Robert Wood regarding the U.S. government's conspicuous refusal to declare the overthrow of Honduras' democratically elected president Manuel Zelaya a "military coup":

MR. WOOD: [W]e’re going to continue to try to convince both parties and go from there. But a coup took place in the country, and –

QUESTION: Well, you haven’t officially legally declared it a coup yet.

MR. WOOD: We have called it a coup. What we have said is that we legally can’t determine it to be a military coup. That review is still ongoing.

QUESTION: Why does it take so long to review whether there’s a military coup or not?

MR. WOOD: Well, look, there are a lot of legal issues here that have to be carefully examined before we can make that determination, and it requires information being shared amongst a number of parties. We need to be able to take a look at that information and make our best legal judgment as to whether or not –

QUESTION: It seems to be taking a very long time.

MR. WOOD: Well, things take time when you’re dealing with these kinds of very sensitive legal issues.

Having majored in English in college, I am ill-prepared for deciphering the language of government and State Department flacks. Indeed, my lack of education in bureaucratic legalese does not permit me to fully comprehend how Robert Wood can concede Zelaya was overthrown in a coup -- defined as "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" -- but at the same time claim it an unresolved question whether said overthrow was a military coup. My confusion is compounded by the widely reported and undisputed fact that it was the (U.S. School of the Americas-trained) Honduran military brass which forced Zelaya into exile.

In other news, a spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the department has concluded that the sun rises in the East, but that officials are still "carefully examining" whether it sets in the West.

Some crazies don't always 'appreciate' US-backed dictators, wars

At a press conference following the Summit of the Americas, President Obama denied any U.S. role in an apparent attempt to assassinate Bolivian President Evo Morales. But in the process of doing so, he phrased opposition to U.S. intervention in Latin America in a rather interesting way, stating:

"The United States, obviously, has a history in this region that's not always appreciated from the perspective of some."

With the U.S. having supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Chile favor of the iron rule of a military dictator, and having fueled a long-running conflict in Colombia in the name of the war on drugs, there are certainly some in the region who haven't always "appreciated" U.S. intervention in the region: the people who live there.