Wikileaks and Latin America: Same Old Imperious U.S. Diplomats

As more and more documents become available from Wikileaks, the public has gotten a novel and close up view of U.S. diplomats and their operations abroad. I was particularly interested to review heretofore secret documents dealing with Latin America, a region which has absorbed the attention of Washington officials in recent years. While it’s certainly no secret that the Bush administration, not to mention the later Obama White House, have both sought to isolate the so-called “Pink Tide” of leftist regimes in South America, the Wikileaks documents give us some interesting insight into the mindset of U.S. diplomats as they carry out their day to day work.

Needless to say, the picture that emerges isn’t too flattering.

Take, for example, a 2005 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia1 which details a high level conversation which took place between the American ambassador, John Danilovich, and Brazilian General Jorge Armando Felix. A longtime businessman, Danilovich spent 20 years in the shipping industry in London and it was there that the American organized voters for George Bush and his father. A big time GOP donor, Danilovich proved a loyal lieutenant at his post in Brasilia, specifically by opposing the left turn in South America.

In 2005, Hugo Chávez was at the height of his political powers, challenging the unpopular Bush regime throughout the region. Over in Bolivia meanwhile, Washington fretted that an erstwhile coca farmer, Evo Morales, might win his country’s presidential election. For Washington, Brazil had become a country of vital geopolitical importance: if President Lula could be persuaded to drop his support of neighboring Venezuela, then the U.S. would certainly be more successful at halting the region’s leftist advance. In the effort to turn back the Pink Tide, Danilovich was a key figure.

Speaking with the Brazilian daily O Estado de São Paulo, the diplomat accused Chávez of actually funding political forces within Bolivia. Seeking to foster a common U.S.-Brazilian front, Danilovich said the funding was a concern for Washington and ought to preoccupy officials in Brasilia as well. When reporters asked Danilovich whether he was accusing Chávez of directly funding Morales’ campaign, the diplomat would not specify [Morales himself denied the U.S. allegations].

Behind closed doors, Danilovich continued his diplomatic offensive. After lunching with General Felix, the ambassador broached the subject of Venezuela, noting that Chávez was “disrupting Brazil’s efforts to play a leading role politically and economically in South America.” It’s unclear from the cable what Felix might have thought about the ambassador’s comments, though reading between the lines it seems the military man may have been sympathetic toward the U.S. and disagreed with his own government’s official policy toward Venezuela.

Since we don’t have the full text of Danilovich’s cable, it’s unclear whether the diplomat approached other figures in the Lula government about Venezuela, let alone military officials. To be sure, at the time of this meeting Felix was working as Lula’s own Minister of Internal Security and as such no longer occupied an official post within the ranks. Yet, there are some disturbing parallels to the historic past here. Consider that it was not too long ago that Washington collaborated with the anti-Communist Brazilian military which overthrew democracy in a coup. Later, the armed forces hunted down leftists both within the country and abroad through so-called “Operation Condor.”

From Brazil to Argentina

Elsewhere in South America, the U.S. has faced political opposition from some unlikely quarters. Take for example Argentina, up until recently a fairly reliable U.S. ally which followed the Washington economic consensus. With the coming to power of Néstor Kirchner and his wife Cristina Fernández de Kirchner however, U.S.-Argentine relations have taken a nosedive. A fierce critic of the International Monetary Fund, Néstor also pursued an unprecedented diplomatic alliance with leftist Venezuela.2

Wikileaks cables document the deteriorating relationship between Washington and Buenos Aires and show U.S. diplomats as imperious and scheming. Take for example a diplomatic spat between Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for Hemispheric Affairs Arturo Valenzuela and Argentine officials, an incident that I wrote about at the time.3 An American of Chilean descent and a Chavez critic, Valenzuela made his way to Buenos Aires late last year. Causing a diplomatic firestorm, Valenzuela declared before the local media that Argentina lacked adequate legal protections. When the government protested that such was not the case, Valenzuela clarified that he had personally spoken with representatives of American companies through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who were upset about management of the economy. They were reluctant to invest due to lack of legal protections, Valenzuela added.

As if he had not annoyed the government enough already, Valenzuela then declared that he personally had detected a change in the investment climate between 1996 [the height of Argentina’s flirtation with neo-liberal economics] when “there was a lot of enthusiasm to invest,” and the present day. In a communiqué, the Argentine foreign ministry angrily retorted that the government “had not received complaints from U.S. companies which had interests and investments” in the country.

The irate chorus continued with Interior Minister Florencio Randazzo regretting that some U.S. officials had gone back to “the old practices” even though “there was an expectation in Argentina of the inauguration of a new U.S. foreign policy” during the Obama era. The Minister of Justice added that Valenzuela’s remarks were “very unusual and unjustified.” By far however the most incendiary remarks came from former president Néstor Kirchner who accused Valenzuela of behaving like a “viceroy.”

Far from feeling contrite toward Argentina, U.S. diplomats treated the Valenzuela episode rather flippantly and superciliously. In a cable sent to Washington, recently released through Wikileaks4 , American officials in Buenos Aires wrote that the local press had “sensationalized” and over dramatized the incident. “Once again,” diplomats remarked, “the Kirchner government has shown itself to be extremely thin-skinned and intolerant of perceived criticism.” Downplaying the tenor of Valenzuela’s remarks, the authors added that many Argentines routinely complain about the weakness of governing institutions and the rule of law.

It’s difficult to parse what Washington’s policy might be toward Argentina in the Obama era. Judging from another cable released by Wikileaks5 , U.S. officials are still trying to sort it all out and seek to acquire as much information about the Kirchners as possible. Prior to Néstor’s recent death, Secretary of State Clinton personally wrote to the American Embassy in Buenos Aires, remarking that the U.S. was drawing up “a written product examining the interpersonal dynamics between the governing tandem.”

Clinton added that State had a pretty “solid understanding” of Néstor’s style and personality, but Cristina remained a mystery. Specifically, Clinton wanted to know how Cristina managed “her nerves and anxiety.” Somewhat bizarrely, Clinton then asked her subordinates whether Cristina was taking any medications. Again and again, the Secretary of State pressed for details about Cristina’s psychological and emotional profile.

Though certainly intriguing, the Wikileaks cable fails to answer a vital question: why would Clinton seek a psychological evaluation of Cristina in the first place? Perhaps, the United States government simply lacked information about the Argentine president and wanted to know who it was dealing with in South America. Another darker reading however is that the U.S. does not trust Argentina and is seeking to manipulate Cristina or uncover some dirt. A Machiavellian if there ever was one, Clinton is surely capable of playing political hardball and engaging in diplomatic intrigue.

For far too long, the U.S. public has remained ignorant of its government’s overseas efforts to turn back Latin America’s leftist Pink Tide. Though scant thus far, Wikileaks’ release of documents pertaining to Latin America is telling. From Brazil to Argentina, American officials have emerged as an imperious and cynical lot. Hopefully in the days ahead we may learn more about the Bush and Obama administration’s handling not only of Brazil and Argentina but also Venezuela, Bolivia, and Honduras.

Nikolas Kozloff, Ph.D. is a former COHA Senior Research Fellow and is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left.
Some of his other posts are available at www.nikolaskozloff.com

References for this article are available here

20 thoughts on “Wikileaks and Latin America: Same Old Imperious U.S. Diplomats

  • November 30, 2010 at 3:11 pm
    Permalink

    These revelations actually don't tell us anything of importance we didn't already know. It is also in poor taste to read and publish other people's mail.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 6:24 pm
    Permalink

    This is like a Rorschach test. If your worldview is that the USA is an evil empire scheming against the noble people of Latin-America, these leaks proof that the sky is falling.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 8:49 pm
    Permalink

    Nothing new revealed here. If you take the long view, you might consider that at least the cables aren't showing active support for (or active design of) military coups or electoral fraud, as in the "good old days." We also knew previously that some ambassadors aren't the brightest lights in the chandelier, given that political loyalty is the main qualification.

    Having said that, one would still hope for better from the Obama administration, and from Arturo Valenzuela.

    COHA should go after real issues with in depth coverage, not this kind of overview stuff.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 10:11 pm
    Permalink

    Glad you did this. I was wondering if there was Latin America material.
    I'm not sure what is new or not new in these cables. The breezy style of the writing tends to suggest there is nothing of importance. But I'd like to read the cables and see for myself. Why not post links to the actual cables?
    And Henry, saludos.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 4:27 am
    Permalink

    I don't think the cables reveal anything particularly sensational. As many commentators have pointed out here in the U.K., they're for the most part gossip. Here are some interesting and varied assessments from the The Guardian (one of the media outlets hosting the leaked cables) on their significance and how they can be read. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifameric

    I would only add a few points…

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 4:28 am
    Permalink

    Firstly, they are not top secret material. My understanding is that that some 3 million U.S. officials had the appropriate level of security clearance to view these documents. So not exactly restricted.

    Secondly, it’s very interesting the link that you raise, Nikolas, on the parallels with the Cold War era and some of the U.S. cables that have emerged specifically in relation to Operation Condor. Rather, than their content, my view is that their value stems from the insight they provide on the extent to which U.S. officials can glean information from, at least potentially, friendly "assets". When we bear in mind the aforementioned fact that they are far from Top Secret, this raises concern as to what is being said that IS NOT covered by these documents.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 4:29 am
    Permalink

    Finally, on the question of digging for "dirt" regarding the mental fitness to rule of some of the leaders that Washington disapproves of, this is standard PSYOPS (or Strategic Communications – if you want a more up to date rebranding). It was common practice to portray leaders of regimes which incurred the wrath of Washington during the Cold War as "erratic" and or mentally unfit to rule (and even to label them as degenerates who enjoyed pornography) as was done with Allende.

    I read somewhere, that an official from State tried to elicit from an Argentine official whether he thought the Kirchner's (can't recall which one) had some sort of mental imbalance, the Argentine official replied that he thought anyone who bombs and invades a country in flagrant violation of international law was unbalanced. To which the U.S. official replied: "entendido".

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 1:24 pm
    Permalink

    Well, what's new? The greatest racist Empire in history (ie us..USA) is trying to denegrate these non-whites who wish to have standards of living beyond the 19th century. Where do they get off?
    Don't they understand our religion……………………….MERCILESS GREED that respects no one even our own population?

    Reply
  • December 2, 2010 at 12:06 am
    Permalink

    We will see a Bolivarian renewal in the south and it will not harm us. We will not be able to continue sending orders to dictators as easily as it has been done.
    No one wants to hurt us, but we have hurt other democracies in order to use resources.
    When we become fair traders with them, they will gladly trade with us, and as good neighbors.
    bobby99

    Reply
  • December 2, 2010 at 6:45 am
    Permalink

    This is one of the weakest analyses I've ever read. "Oh my God, a US official met with a former South American military official! The US wants to overthrow our government! Operation Condor all over again!" This is essentially what you are saying and it simply doesn't make sense (I'm not going to even comment on the insidiousness which is shameful on your part). Conspiracy theories make fun reads but I expect more from COHA (I don't expect much more from what I can tell is a dogmatic anti-American leftist).
    And Tommy Hancock quit reading Che's UN transcripts. The US is a racist empire? Adjust your TV screen. Our president is I'm proud to say Black. And Hispanics are a rising force within our Congress. I challenge you to find any other country that has as much DIVERSITY within their own population and government. Good luck.

    Reply
  • December 4, 2010 at 8:38 am
    Permalink

    It is a complete waste of time to publish this "analysis." I expect something more than mindless speculation regarding the reporting of ambiguous and arguably benign conversations. While I am no fan of Danilovich, the conversation reported between him and a Brazilian General regarding Chavez does not come even remotely close to fomenting military intervention in Brazilian politics, so why waste time with such idle speculation ? It is absurd. Publishing drivel and speculation of this nature reveals a lack of appropriate editorial judgment by COHA.. There are important matters to report on, so stop wasting resources on empty speculation and drivel

    Reply
  • December 5, 2010 at 12:03 am
    Permalink

    The scuttlebutt according to the hitch hiker's guide is that Hilary attended the 200th independence day dinner in Argentina. During pre dinner shmoozathons our Hilary claimed there had been a peaceful and positive change of presidents in Honduras, international diplomatic responses was tepid, some say frigid, even irate. Okay, now guess who was sitting next to the president of Argentina when the hour of actual grand dinner of state finally arrived? Yep, the democratically elected President of Honduras, who Hilary helped kick out of the country, for raising the minimum wage, just like President Aristide of Haiti. See the pattern ? The president democratically elected president of Honduras was kidnapped by thugs educated at College of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. Though most U.S. citizens don't know much about any of this, tens of millions of Americans south of our border know that the US didn't allow President Zelaya to transfer his presidential power because they allowed idiots to kidnap him and thus stopped the transfer of democratically elected power. That is why the democratically elected president of Honduras sat next to the president of Argentina. Hillary's rambling about peaceful change continued on as she toured northward, toward home. In the end she stood alone at the airport waiting for her plane, with nobody to talk to. Anyway, that's the way I heard it happened, way before wikileaks proved it every way to sunday.

    Reply
  • December 9, 2010 at 9:44 am
    Permalink

    When the U.S. meddles in another country, it"s called " intervention in a soverign state:" When Chavez, Castro, or Ahmadinajad interfere in another country it"s called supporting our fraternal brothers. Go figure.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *