Tag Archives: John Bolton

Political Rants

Like old times.

I don’t know if it was at the start of this week or at the end of last week, but at some point recently I wondered aloud what became of the Trump administration’s coup plan in Venezuela. It seemed to have fizzled rather badly, despite their best efforts … but then this week it sprang back to life like Frankenstein’s monster. Washington’s hand-picked maximum leader of that unfortunate country, Juan Guaido, appeared in a cell-phone video surrounded by what appears to be a handful of soldiers, declaring himself president once again. This is, of course, not a coup, we’re told, because officials of the United States government have decided that Guaido is the legitimate president of Venezuela. Nothing screams freedom more than leaders selected by the regional hegemon.

Worse than neocons. Old-school imperialists.

Naturally, our execrable National Security Advisor John Bolton and our equally fragrant Secretary of State Michael Pompeo are behaving as if whatever they say randomly just has to be true. Pompeo claimed to CNN that Maduro had a plane ready to fly to Havana, but was talked out of it by the Russians. This doesn’t appear to be anything near the truth, it will surprise you to hear. Let’s just say these gentlemen have some serious credibility issues. As ham-fisted as they are, though, it’s hard to overstate the pressure that the United States can apply to a country like Venezuela. We basically control the international financial system, and Caracas has been cut off from the banking, loans, etc., since Trump applied sanctions in 2017. They are making the economy scream, as Nixon/Kissinger did with Chile in 1973, and this could bring the roof down eventually. (See the Center for Economic and Policy Research paper on these sanctions for more.)

We know from the Iraq debacle, and other comparable debacles before and since, that craven policy makers like Bolton, Pompeo, and Elliott Abrams can break a country in half, if we let them. What they’re not so good at is putting it back together (not that possessing that particular skill would make it in any way a worthy enterprise). There’s a better than fair chance that they will succeed in crushing the Maduro government, but very likely that will not be the end of it. Venezuela may be plunged into a bloody civil conflict that could last for years, perhaps decades. Not that such an outcome would be any skin off of Bolton’s ample nose, nor Abrams’. They’ve come through their previous disasters without a scratch. That’s more than I can say for their targets.

The only thing that can stop them is us. We need to raise our voices on this now, before it’s too late.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Empire news.

Brazil’s fraudulently elected president Jair Balsonaro visited with the marginally less detestable Donald Trump this past week – a reported love fest in which Trump not only announced Brazil’s new status as a “non-NATO ally” (which means lots more weapons for Balsonaro to use against his own people) but breezily suggested elevating Brazil to full NATO membership …. which is a little strange, and may have taken Trump’s advisors somewhat by surprise. The two pretenders also discussed the ongoing U.S. attack on Venezuela, which Balsonaro is happy to join in on. Of course, that would only make him like most of our political class here at home, which has openly supported the coup attempt by right-wing Venezuelan politician Juan Guaido … as have much of our corporate media.

Just to single out a particularly egregious recent example, NPR’s insipid Morning Edition ran a piece by one-time journalist Phillip Reeves about the crisis in Venezuela. The framing of the piece was typical of Reeves and NPR – through the lens of U.S. historic role in the hemisphere; that of a hegemonic power. “How is the president of Venezuela still in power?” asks host Steve Inskeep in the intro, adding that the U.S. is “moving to choke off the oil revenue that supports the socialist government.” First of all, that revenue has already been “choked off.” Second, NPR always characterizes these siege-like sanctions as only punishing the government, not the people of Venezuela. Finally … “socialist”? What the hell kind of socialist country has as many wealthy people as Venezuela does? Yes, the government controls the oil industry, but that pre-dates Chavez. The neo-colonial economy of the country is one based principally on export of petroleum – that’s largely why the economy is in turmoil.

NPR: Giving Venezuela the Iraq treatment

Reeves’s story suggests an opposition under pressure, but what he’s describing is a self-proclaimed president, Guaido, who is still functioning inside the country, openly calling for intervention by the hemispheric superpower … and yet, still not incarcerated by this supposedly very oppressive government. Every mention of Maduro or the government emphasizes the label “socialist” and paints the regime as dictatorial. Chavez, Reeves writes, was Maduro’s “socialist mentor” who “took power in 1999” (i.e. won the first of several elections). Reeves talks to several Guaido supporters, most English-speaking, but only one Maduro supporter, whom he describes as “a lifelong communist” who lives in a “ramshackle home.” This sixty-five year old man, Reeves reports with seeming disbelief, is “convinced the U.S. is at war with Maduro to seize Venezuela’s oil.” Where would he get THAT idea? (Well … from Trump himself, from John Bolton … from recent and not-so-recent history.)

Pretty amazing stuff to run on the 16th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq – an anniversary that Morning Edition didn’t see fit to mark in any serious way. You’d think that any outlet that was as flat-footed as NPR was in the run-up to the Iraq War might have learned enough from the experience not to mindlessly serve the interests of a bellicose administration set on regime change. And you would be disappointed.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

No peace.

The much-anticipated summit in Vietnam between Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un ended without a deal. It’s pretty obvious that Trump’s shoot-from-the-hip approach to diplomacy is less than optimal. On top of that, there’s plenty of space in the empty skull of his for unsavory characters like John Bolton to take up residence. I suspect he was the cause of the breakdown. It sounds as though the discussion about nuclear technology was broadened by the U.S. delegation to include chemical and biological weapon systems as well. The president’s post-summit statement didn’t go there, of course, but that’s no surprise. I’m not convinced that he knows entirely what took place in Vietnam, he’s such a ding dong.

There's a lot of love there.

Nevertheless, his impulse towards talking this out is positive, and I support the effort, even though he’s probably coming at it from entirely the wrong direction. Any effort towards peace on the Korean peninsula is worth pursuing, in my view, though U.S. policymakers of both major parties would likely disagree. I’ve written elsewhere in these pages about my thoughts on our government’s motivations for prolonging this conflict. I don’t think Trump is part of that consensus, and that is probably a frustration to the foreign policy establishment. It’s hard to be sure about what’s happening here, but we are faced with the unusual circumstance of the president being very nearly right about something.

Of course, the upshot of this is that the mainstream, center-left media, like MSNBC, are pummeling Trump over his failure to reach a deal. Worse, they criticize his decision not to hold those enormous joint military exercises with South Korea, characterizing it as a gift to Kim Jong Un. They have also been harping on American student Otto Warmbier, who died after being released from North Korean custody. And just this week, the focus has been on North Korea’s mothballed missile site showing signs of being brought back into operation. It’s kind of a full-court press on the evils of Kim and the incompetence of Trump.

This is just stupid. I understand the impulse to oppose Trump at every opportunity (except, of course, on Venezuela), but this hammering over Korea turns the heat up on a volatile situation that threatens hundreds of thousands of lives. We were a whisker away from all-out war a little over a year ago, and that was not a good place to be. I’m not saying to avoid reporting on this diplomatic dance; I’m saying that the editorializing is over- the-top and not helpful to the cause of peace.

So, liberals … dial back the Korea rhetoric a bit. Let’s encourage this administration to do something useful, like end this pointless conflict that began with our hubris and stupidity more than 70 years ago. There are plenty of things you can attack Trump over – this shouldn’t be one of them.

luv u,

jp