|
1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, |
|
|
Council On Hemispheric Affairs |
|
|
Monitoring
Political, Economic and Diplomatic Issues Affecting the Western
Hemisphere |
|
|
Memorandum to the Press 05.42 |
|
Word Count: 1700
Tuesday, 12 April, 2005
Bolton
and Negroponte Nominations
& the OAS Stand-off
Appalling
nominations and the race for the OAS secretary-general
post: Dramatic examples of the U.S.’s failed Latin American policy
and the Bush administration’s disdain for international norms.
The Negroponte and Bolton Nominations
The Bush administration has nominated
John Bolton and John Negroponte to be its ambassador to the United Nations
and its intelligence
czar, respectively.
Compelling evidence indicates that while Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras
from 1981-85, a period in which the Central American country was converted
into an unsinkable aircraft carrier from which to stage the secret war against
the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, he sanctioned or was at least fully appraised
of major atrocities occurring in the country. In the service of the Reagan
administration, Negroponte repeatedly deceived the U.S.
media.
During Congressional
hearings he lied in order to cover up the creation, training and funding
of a Honduran paramilitary “death squad” by U.S. authorities.
Under reforms introduced during the Kennedy administration, as ambassador
Negroponte had to be informed of all CIA projects
in the country. The paramilitary Battalion 316 systematically murdered
over 200 local opponents of the Honduran government, which had a policy of
total cooperation with Washington in its CIA-directed Central American secret
wars.
Negroponte is guilty of presiding over the diplomatic version of Lieutenant
Calley’s My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, yet refuses to express
remorse or own up to his diplomatic derelictions. The U.S. embassy in
Tegucigalpa’s human rights report that was to go to the State Department
and was highly critical of Negroponte was edited by the ambassador himself
to omit information on the nation’s human rights violations. Had the
findings stayed in their original form, which portrayed Honduras’ human
rights reputation in unflattering terms, the U.S. government by law would
have been obligated to cease funding the Honduran military.
In spite of the lofty rhetoric being used by some senators to laud his career,
Negroponte is little better than a dignified cutpurse who has the blood of
thousands of the innocent on his hands and has avoided personal culpability
for what happened in Honduras during those years. While Mrs. Negroponte urges
her husband’s critics to “get on with their lives,” it’s
difficult for many Hondurans to do so because their loved ones were murdered.
Earlier this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
met to discuss John Bolton’s nomination to be the U.S. ambassador to the UN. Despite
his declarations before the committee that the UN is “an important
component of our democracy" and pledges “to fulfill the president's
vision of working in close partnership with the United Nations,” COHA
strongly opposes Bolton’s candidacy based on his unambiguous record
to the contrary. When it comes to the UN or international initiatives in
general, he has been all but pathogenic to such causes, rather than striving
to uphold them. Our opinion is not based on his ideological leanings but
reflects the unrelieved scandalous behavior that was reflected during his
stint as under secretary for arms control and international security in the
first Bush administration.
By
selecting an individual who has spent the last decade repudiating basic
norms of international cooperation and civility, Bolton’s
nomination is tantamount to a slap in the face of multilateral cooperation
and U.S.
accountability. His consideration is an insult to U.S. diplomatic tradition
and debases the principle of high standards in public service. The
fact that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed off on his nomination
indicates
the lamentable lack of professionalism that her tenure will likely
take and that she will figure to be a dependably illiberal factor in
international
diplomacy despite her mechanical technocratic rhetoric. We find it
difficult to believe that a man who repeatedly has demonstrated his
total disdain for
multilateral cooperation, who even declared in 1994 that “there
is no such thing as the United Nations,” could have been
considered fit to occupy the chair once held by Adlai Stevenson.
In May 2002, Bolton outlandishly stated that Cuba not only possessed “at
least a limited offensive biological warfare research development effort,” but
had provided such technology to “other rogue states.” When
challenged by Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) to produce his evidence
before a hearing
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he declined to appear. His
charges were so bereft of any substance that his Bush administration
colleagues rushed
to disavow any association with them, spurring refutations by then
Secretary of State Colin Powell, former commander of the U.S. Southern
Command
Gen. Charles Wilhelm and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Bolton
also apparently
threatened a State Department official in charge of monitoring such
activity who dared to say that Bolton’s charges went beyond any
evidence that the U.S. government possessed.
Following the selection of Negroponte as director of national intelligence
and Elliot Abrams as deputy national security advisor, the Bolton nomination
reinforces the notion that the Bush White House is incapable of selecting
at least moderates to high public office. The U.N. will face a fierce
challenge if the Senate finds Bolton acceptable and
confirms him,
thus guaranteeing an epoch which will witness the further “trashification” of
this country’s public administration by the Bush White House.
Another lamentable aspect of the debate over Bolton and Negroponte
is the complete lack of a moral component in the role being played
by Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), who repeatedly reverts
to Jesuitic phrases to justify his lame defense of administration
nominations, particularly his shameless lack of leadership when it comes
to the
Bolton choice.
This
analysis was prepared by COHA Director Larry Birns.
The Chess Game Continues: OAS Fails to Elect New Secretary-General
In
an unexpected turn of events, the Organization of American States’ (OAS)
General Assembly failed to elect a new secretary-general. The April 11 vote
took place three days after the U.S.’ preferetti for the post, former
El Salvadoran President Francisco Flores, surprisingly withdrew from the
race. Flores had the backing of most Central American states and the U.S.
but was considered the least viable choice among the three candidates, which
also include Chile’s interior minister, José Miguel Insulza,
and Mexico’s minister of foreign affairs, Ernesto Derbez.
After five rounds of votes at the OAS headquarters in downtown Washington,
the member states failed to elect a new leader, with reports indicating that
Derbez and Insulza each received 17 votes in all of the rounds (a candidate
needs 18 out of the 34 possible votes to win). Due to the stalemate, the
election has been postponed until May 2.
The OAS and Washington
The ongoing saga to elect an OAS leader has placed Washington in an uncomfortable
position. This vote represents the first time that a U.S.-backed candidate
will not be effortlessly elected to the position, which calls into question
the exact nature of the relationship between the U.S. and the OAS for the
following five years, particularly if the second string choice of the Bush
administration – Derbez – is not awarded the post in May.
The withdrawal of Flores, an ill-prepared political lightweight who was
on the State Department’s list of dependent leaders who could be
described as “U.S. clones,” must have been a hard hit for State
Department hawks like Assistant Secretary Roger Noriega.
The question now is who would the U.S. like to see lead the OAS: Insulza,
a strong-willed, if not arrogant, Chilean official who is a member of the
Chilean Socialist party and opposed the U.S. war in Iraq, or Derbez, a relatively
last-minute addition to the race who, in spite of his World Bank experience,
does not appear to have the background or capacities to lead the hemispheric
organization, much less the capacity to reform it. There are already rumors
that a consensus candidate in the form of Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros, Peru’s
minister of foreign affairs, might emerge. Interestingly, Insulza, Derbez
and for that matter, Rodriguez, are all politicians with aspirations to run
for the presidency of their respective countries in upcoming elections. However,
they are being “pushed aside” by their political
mentors by being offered the OAS position as a “consolation prize.”
Washington is likely to step up its support of Derbez in an effort to improve relations with Mexico, its NAFTA partner, especially after the recent summit between Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Texas.
The OAS and Latin America
For
decades, Latin American leaders have proclaimed the necessity to get out
from under Washington’s all persuasive sphere of influence, using
such hoary rhetoric of Latin American unity. However, when it comes to foot
the bill, the U.S. covers over 60 percent of the OAS’ $84 million-budget.
Where are the regional nationalists when it comes time to pay the
OAS’ bills?
There are few takers. If regional leaders are interested in moving Latin
America away from the U.S.’ sphere of influence, then they should assume
the responsibility of moving the OAS’ headquarters from downtown Washington
to Caracas, Brasilia or Panama City.
In
the end, the White House will have to realize that the OAS might actually
take the step of relocating from
Washington, both in symbolic as well as
pragmatic terms. This may not be necessarily a bad idea. Should the OAS end
up with a secretary-general not heavily influenced by the State Department,
as has been the case since it was founded in 1948, good relations between
the U.S. and the regional body would be a sign that Washington is willing
to deal with the rest of the hemisphere as coequals. If, on the other hand,
the U.S. continues to use its influence either in a gross or subtle manner
on some small CARICOM nation like the Bahamas, Grenada or St. Kitts & Nevis
(population 38,000) to change their vote to support a candidate
of Washington’s preference, just like what happened in 1975 and 1994,
then the OAS’ future will be limited. Perhaps the OAS could morph
into a new body composed exclusively of Latin American
nations, with the U.S. and Canada consigned to being observers – something
like an expanded Rio group somewhat akin to the African Union. In any event,
if the OAS is to function professionally and prove its worth, it must no
longer be the embarrassment that it is now proving to be.
This
analysis was prepared by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez.
April
12, 2005
Click
here to read our two most recent press releases on the OAS race and the Bolton
nomination: OAS 05.40, 05.09;
Bolton 05.27, 04.97.
The Council on
Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit,
non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has
been described
on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected bodies
of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, please see our
web page at www.coha.org; or contact our Washington offices by phone
(202)
223-4975, fax (202) 223-4979, or email coha@coha.org.