The US has long operated on the principle that tyrannical rules in Asia and Latin America are quite okay, in fact desirable, as long as they are "our" tyrants – democracy be damned. That unprincipled foreign policy made possible brutal, authoritarian regimes in Chile, Argentina Colombia, El Salvador, Iran, and yes, Iraq. Irrational and obsessive fear of communism gave rise to the "Domino Theory" which led to widespread devastation in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1970s. The same paranoia has kept alive a forty year long stand off with Cuba and is spawning new ones with Venezuela and perhaps even Bolivia. We are once again militarily engaged in reshaping foreign governments, this time in the middle east. The result is not pretty as we learn every day. Bush’s iron fisted attempts at spreading democracy by shock and awe continues to bloody Iraq and Afghanistan and their democratic future is very much in doubt. The Lebanese have been left reeling as they take stock of the shattered remains of the Cedar Revolution. But that hasn’t curbed the arrogance of the reckless Bush administration. We are now interfering in yet another nation’s internal politics – for the second time. It’s worth repeating here that one definition of insanity is to repeatedly step in the same crap and expect to come out smelling like roses.
Flashback : United States intervenes — again — in Nicaragua.
Campaign season has begun in Nicaragua, and it feels like old times.
Sandinista Daniel Ortega, ex-president and three-time failed presidential candidate, again is running for office. And, just as in the Reagan years — or, come to think of it, the Roosevelt years — the United States flouts democratic values to intervene.
U.S. ambassador Paul Trivelli is working overtime pushing Ortega’s rival. In May, Trivelli even tried ginning up a primary, hoping to unite the competition. (He failed.)
But the White House isn’t daunted. Ortega has only grown more odious to the administration, thanks to his alliance with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
What the administration doesn’t get is that this resentment predates Chavez. In Nicaragua, 19th-century mercenary William Walker and the U.S.-coddled Somoza dictatorship planted it long ago. Why feed it by again disdaining Nicaragua’s sovereignty?
The United States needs to defend its interests. But there’s a difference between wanting democracy, or even a candidate, and actively distorting another country’s electoral process.
In the short term, this involvement actually could backfire. A tirade from the U.S. ambassador nudged Bolivian leftist Evo Morales closer to being president. And in Nicaragua, after Trivelli’s failed primary foray, Ortega gained six percentage points in polls. Regardless of who wins the presidency, Sandinistas likely will be the National Assembly’s largest bloc. They’ll surely be in payback mode.
What if Washington’s man wins? Our meddling still is poisonous business. Americans die daily in Iraq, supposedly in service of democracy. It does not escape world notice — or help those soldiers — when U.S. leaders mock democracy in their own backyard.
If the US wishes to proceed aggressively in Nicaragua, after beating the democracy horse to death in the middle east, it might be a tough sell. Bush has two choices:
1. Have Cheney and his biographer concoct a false link between Daniel Ortega and 9/11, thus making an invasion of Nicaragua an inevitability.
2. Commission retired right wing hero Oliver North to stage another Iran Contra debacle.
This time around, the second option may be quite interesting. The original fiasco is twenty years old and the cloak and dagger strategery might appeal to the secretive neocons. Except this time, we will not need an Independent Counsel to investigate the skullduggery. We will be able to read all about it on Ahmadinejad’s blog !
Accidental Blogger 
11 responses to “Desperately Seeking Ollie North”
If we see everything through the prism of American politics, then we perhaps miss asking some fundamental questions. Why is South American politics so prone to extreme Left & Right swings? Why do South American societies need an extreme tilt to the Right for decent economic growth to happen? and why does economic development need an extreme tilt to the Left?
LikeLike
Sanjay:
What is your explanation for this pendulum swing in Latin American politics?
Frankly, I don’t know. Are these cultures given to extremes? The hot Latin blood? The air, the water? Surely, we can’t believe that.
The only thing I know is that repeatedly, the US has supported and propped up right wing juntas in many of these regions through assassinations, money, arms and other forms of gross interference. After a few years of human rights and economic repression by the right wing elite, we see left wing populist back lashes leading to civil wars, more assassinations and a dive in the economy. Coincidence? I don’t think so. If the Latin American regimes are given to these extremes in their politics, we are given to treating them with contempt like a bunch of yahoos in our backyard, to be manipulated solely for the benefit of the US. It hasn’t worked so far and I doubt it will in the future.
Currently, there are leftist governments in Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil and now possibly Nicaragua. Sooner or later, the CIA will machinate to overthrow one or the other through assassination, military coup or some such underhanded tactic. The ripest fruit to be plucked is of course Hugo Chavez. But what might happen if we left them alone, to elect their own governments and kept trade and other avenues of cultural and diplomatic exchange open? Will these nations at last settle down into a rhythm of political stability and economic moderation, rather than swinging wildly between two extremes? Might Iran have been a modern, prosperous and democratic nation today if we hadn’t got rid of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953? Would Cuba have been a good neighbor had we not continued boycotting it even after the USSR disintegrated? We dont’ know. We have never given such options a chance.
Take India and Pakistan for instance and judge for yourself. Which nation had wholehearted US support in the form of aid and arms for its military and other dictatorships? Which one was snubbed with benign (and sometimes not so benign) neglect for leaning towards a socialist democracy? Do you remember US foreign policy for decades in the Indian subcontinent, until it changed recently? Which of the two went the way of a stable democracy and which one now sits on a powder keg of violent extremism?
Influencing others to see things one’s way is not a bad thing but doing so in a cynical and authoritarian manner is quite another. A modicum of respect in foreign policy goes way further in helping a country find its own two feet than spreading an ideology by force and bribery.
LikeLike
Ruchira,
Maybe a political theorist or a cartoonist can come up with the link between air, water & blood temperature and politics :-)
During periods of economic growth in any country, huge amounts of foreign capital investments flow into the country. It is up to the socio-economic-political milieu of that country to be robust enough to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are evenly distributed amongst its own populace.
UNDP figures show that the Latin American region always holds the highest Gini indicator in the world despite high GNP derived from oil and manufacturing, rapid urbanization, industrialization etc. Consider the Gini index (a measure of income inequality – anything over 40-45 is considered pretty ugly) of a few South American nations & one can see an explosive political situation in the making.
Brazil 59.3
Chile 57.1
Argentina 52.2
Venezuela 49.1
Nicaragua 43.1
Bolivia 44.7
(By contrast, India’s Gini index is at approx 32.5 & declining)
To me, there is clear evidence of a lack of checks & balances inherent in South Amercian societies such that even in times of high economic growth, the benefits of that growth are very unequally distributed.
My point is that, even if we obviously hate Bush’s guts, it would be quite ludicrous to claim that the skewed income distribution in virtually every nation of the Latin American region of the world is due to American interventionism. A more compelling case can be made that it is some basic flaw in the socio-political nature of these societies that is manifested as cycles of repression & revolution.
LikeLike
Sanjay:
You have actually said something after my own deeply held belief.
I completely agree with you that those numbers you presented about income inequality are the key. The selfish greed and naked grab for all the goodies by the entrenched elite (usually of white European ancestry, as opposed to the mixed and indigenous races) in Latin America is primarily responsible for the extreme swings in the political culture there.
The United States is not directly responsible for the greed of Latin American dictators and their henchmen. But supporting these juntas to come to power, then helping them to stay in power, invariably opposing and obstructing all populist movements, are some of the factors which perpetuate the vicious cycle. That is what I was frowning upon. I pointed to examples in other parts of the world – Pakistan and the Phillippines are two good examples in Asia.
In spite of India’s generalized poverty, indeed the index of inequality is not so startling. And I have the confidence that by expanding its manufacturing base along with the service sector, India will close the gap.
Now I will ask you a question that you must answer with an open mind. Is it possible that India’s first four decades after independence as a socialist leaning democracy had something to do with it? The culture of labor unions, nationalization of parts of the economy etc. put in place an expectation of minimal fairness in the Indian labor force? True that those measures didn’t do anything much for economic growth but set in place a work and business culture, which in spite of widespread corruption and lack of infrastructure, allows India to slowly but surely move towards prosperity without going through the violent ups and downs of Latin America?
LikeLike
Ruchira,
Let me say quite candidly that I’ve recently developed a much more open mind about Indian socialism than I used to even a year ago :-) What this means is that I’ve begun to better understand – and appreciate – the role that Nehruvian socialism played after Independence. I’ve slowly arrived at the realization that socialism played a role in India which goes much further and deeper than merely achieving income equality (although, this is admittedly both important & desirable as outcomes). I think the very physical survival of large swathes of the Indian population was at stake.
This realization was driven home to me when I read something by Amartya Sen about China’s failure to prevent the famine deaths of 1958-61. Although exact data are not available, estimates range anywhere from 30 to 40 million deaths caused by the famine. How was India able to escape such massive loss of lives?
I think socialism is one part of the answer. Another part comes from, strangely enough, a Chinese-born scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an expert on India/ China. Yasheng Huang writes how identity based politics works in India
“By compelling each politician to deliver results to his own narrow constituency, democracy spreads economic change more thinly. But that in turn broadens the consensus in favor of change, perhaps making liberalization more sustainable in India than in China.”
It is ironic that the very survival of large swathes of India’s population in the decades after Independence was perhaps made possible because of a combination of two much-maligned factors: Nehruvian socialism & identity-based i.e caste politics.
I do not think that socialism, of itself, would have been sufficient & this is proven by the failure of both China and the Soviet Union – each was a much stronger form of socialism than the nehruvian version – to prevent mass deaths by starvation.
And, imo, it is this combination which sets India apart & one which is more likely to keep the ship steady even during periods of high growth.
More about LatAm in a separate post.
LikeLike
Thank you Sanjay for your thoughtful reply. Sign of maturity? :-)
I am no fan of authoritarian socialism. The key factor is democracy – when workers have a stake in national progress and development. That is why I am so concerned that India should not be seduced by the false glamor of unfettered free market forces and use common sense. It should also look back on its history to determine what worked to create a national identity and expectation of fairness after independence. Breakneck growth at the cost of human rights and ecology like China is not the answer. But a slower, sustainable one which as you said, benefits a wider “swathe” of the population is the way to go. I would much rather see India become like South Korea than China.
Just yesterday I read an article in Washington Post comparing the quality of the labor force, working conditions and worker rights in China and India. The Indian picture is much more fair and optimistic than China’s. I hope it stays that way.
Thanks again for your input. I will wait to hear about Latin America.
LikeLike
Ruchira,
Like you, I’m all in favour of democracy but, of itself, democracy is by no means a guarantee of income equality. China (44) & Hong Kong (43.4) have almost no appreciable difference between their respective Gini indices but none would doubt that HK is the more “democratic” system.
Democratic Brazil’s Gini indicates that over 75% of its income is controlled by its top 20%. Even Brazilian soccer – a potent quasi religious means of transcending internal differences – can only go so far.
In today’s era of Globalization (perhaps more than any other since the end of WW2), it is not the mere existence of democracy, but the nature & quality of that democracy in being able to hear all voices & ultimately providing a fair stake, that will be one of the key components to deciding success or failure.
The other key component will be sustained wealth creation. An old South Indian text wrote long ago about the myriad difficulties faced in creating material wealth & how easy it was to lose it once you did have it. The Thuirrukural used the analogy of an auditorium which fills up ever so slowly as people trickle in before the show & empties in minutes after the show is over.
My point is to try and illustrate the very delicate balance that exists between wealth generation within, and its equitable distribution across, a given society. Very few societies can do BOTH equally well.
I hate to put it in such crass terms but this new globalized competition can be resolved down to a pair of measures: highest possible GDP growth rate with the lowest possible Gini.
LikeLike
Sanjay:
Agreed. I like the auditorium filling up and emptying analogy. The real puzzle of course remains what kind of leadership will ensure that the delicate balance is achieved. What role would you say entrenched, systematic corruption plays in all this?
LikeLike
Ruchira,
Coming up with a measure – admittedly rough, although directionally accurate – of this delicate balance is relatively simple because these metrics are already available from the U.N. or the World Bank. Minimum standards that societies should look to achieve simultaneously:
1. a real GDP growth rate at least 1-2% in excess of the rate of growth of its own population AND
2. a Gini index which is consistently below 35-40 & preferably around the 30 mark
As an example, the U.S. has GDP growth around the 3-3.5% mark but its Gini is way too high at 45. Clearly out of balance. Assuming that there is a strong racial component to this imbalance, don’t you think that it is the Dems, as the party that traditionally represents minorities, which should be evaluating what is wrong with their model? apart from blaming the Republicans, of course :-)
Just as very large corporate congolmerates occasionally break up to allow its fragments to focus on narrow competencies, the Dems may need to distribute its power – perhaps by way of a coalition arrangement amongst multiple political parties, each of which will represent more closely its own narrow constituency.
More generally, my feeling is that nations such as the U.S. the U.K. Brazil etc., which have diverse populations, will need to evolve towards a distributed party system. I don’t believe that the two-party conglomerate system will work any more. It is too much to expect that the power elites of only two large parties will be close enough to the ground realities of smaller & smaller sub-communities. Which is perhaps the need of today.
You raise an interesting question about the role of entrenched, systematic corruption. Personally, I think that systematic corruption is a strong indicator of a system that is out of touch with the real needs of the people it is meant to serve. What is your opinion? I’m interested to hear your take since you obviously think it is an important factor.
LikeLike
It is true that the power elites of the two parties have become interchangeable in their stupidity, greed and corruption. The only good thing I can say about George W. Bush is that his extremely divisive politics are going to force the stupid Democrats to define themselves on issues. They still will play wishy-washy if they can get away with it. But I think the voters are at last going to demand clear answers.
I too am intrigued by the possibility of a multi-party system playing out in the US political landscape. I don’t know what you meant by smaller parties acting on behalf of smaller constituencies. I can see myself supporting that if the constituencies are defined on the basis of political and economic philosophy. But I would be extremely leery of party representations on the basis of ethnic or religious interests as they are in India. That is a scenario I don’t want to see happen here.
What does entrenched corruption do? The most obvious effect in my opinion is to screw up the “Gini” (thanks for teaching me that:-) by enriching a few at the cost of many.
LikeLike
Sanjay:
There is an interesting article by Paul Krugman in The NY Times editorial column. He describes how the economic inequality index is related to the nature of the government. Krugman lists US governmental policies since FDR and shows how GINI was affected during subsequent administrations. According to him, since the advent of Reaganomics which overwhelmingly benefited the rich and capitulation by Clinton to a right wing congress, the US inequality index has been on the rise. Please read the article if you can find it. I can’t link to it because it is Times Select (it was carried by our local paper today.) There is nothing very insightful in Krugman’s views – it’s all quite common sensical.
LikeLike