Thanks for nothin', Harry
A great deal is going to be made of UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Harry Belafonte's remarks while meeting with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez this past Saturday. And, to tell the truth, it should be.
I mean, when you accept the moniker "Ambassador of Goodwill" for a respected international organization, you tacitly acknowledge, and willingly submit to, a certain level of etiquette and diplomatic conduct. Obviously, it is a level that restrains expressions of candor far more than those of private citizens. Equally obvious is that Mr. Belafonte violated that unwritten code of restraint, and an individual of his intelligence should simply have known better no matter what his admirable personal passions or justified frustration with the Bush Administration.
Unfortunately, anticipated reaction to this gaffe will also have a negative effect on what has been the growing ability of Mr. Bush's opponents to be taken seriously by his jittery apologists. What will be lost in the swift and regrettable furor over Harry's slip of the tongue will be the potential for a non-partisan examination of changes needed in the current Administration's attitudes toward Latin America, toward its "War on Terror", and toward the way America is perceived around the globe.
And that's the real shame.
Because within the actual wording of Mr. Belafonte's decidedly undiplomatic tirade there is truth. A truth that will go undebated and uncorrected because of the size of this reprehensible misstep. A truth about the conundrum faced while looking at the objective definition of "terrorism" and how it does apply to American foreign policy - depending, of course, on your subjective point of view.
A truth about the message sent when the world compares 3,000 murdered Americans to over 30,000 dead Iraqis, killed as a result of an unprovoked attack on a nation which posed no immediate threat to anyone but itself. A truth about systematic suspension of basic human ethics, evidenced by years of White House policies sanctioning torture, rendition, and the murder of unarmed detainees.
A truth about subjugating an entire domestic population with a ginned-up, chronic atmosphere of fear, fueled by an unhealthy ration of insidious religious fundamentalism. A truth about an organized plan ten years in the making for the forced military domination of the Middle East. A truth about the labels actually affixed on the U.S. by a significant percentage of the world's population, precisely because of Mr. Bush's ongoing and imperial belligerence.
With even a quick glance at the decades-long ineffectiveness of American policy in Latin America, it's certainly easy to see why Mr. Belafonte's little outburst was so warmly received by Mr, Chavez. In addition, the Venezuelan leader is undoubtedly still stinging from Pat Robertson's horrid call for Chavez's assassination - and the total lack of immediate outrage directed toward the good reverend by Mr. Bush or the Majority Party.
Nevertheless, Mr. Belafonte committed a crucial error on the field, made even more tragic because it threatens the second-half momentum that's been shifting to our side of the ball. It would be encouraging - and probably naive - to believe that A) the "Goodwill Ambassador's" embarrassing diatribe will be swiftly and justifiably condemned as the breach of etiquette it was, and B) brushed aside by Conservatives just as quickly as the Robertson outburst, so we can all get back to addressing those transgressions listed above on national and legal levels.
I fear, however, that these truths will be drowned out in a sea of criticism to come. Nice goin', Harry. Thanks for nothin'. Many of us have agreed for some time that this President is, by strict definition, a "tyrant" and a "terrorist", and have been successfully winning over a few hearts and minds of our own in that respect. Too bad your performance on Saturday won't really help support that message at all.
This once, Harry, you picked the wrong time and place to start singing.
- - - - -
(NOTE: For those of you who are not yet subscribers to the NYT's "Times Select", the archived NYT article linked in the post is reprinted in the comments section below. Click "add your opinion" to access the full editorial.
Click here for details on purchasing "Times Select", and obtaining a 14-day free trial.)
I mean, when you accept the moniker "Ambassador of Goodwill" for a respected international organization, you tacitly acknowledge, and willingly submit to, a certain level of etiquette and diplomatic conduct. Obviously, it is a level that restrains expressions of candor far more than those of private citizens. Equally obvious is that Mr. Belafonte violated that unwritten code of restraint, and an individual of his intelligence should simply have known better no matter what his admirable personal passions or justified frustration with the Bush Administration.
Unfortunately, anticipated reaction to this gaffe will also have a negative effect on what has been the growing ability of Mr. Bush's opponents to be taken seriously by his jittery apologists. What will be lost in the swift and regrettable furor over Harry's slip of the tongue will be the potential for a non-partisan examination of changes needed in the current Administration's attitudes toward Latin America, toward its "War on Terror", and toward the way America is perceived around the globe.
And that's the real shame.
Because within the actual wording of Mr. Belafonte's decidedly undiplomatic tirade there is truth. A truth that will go undebated and uncorrected because of the size of this reprehensible misstep. A truth about the conundrum faced while looking at the objective definition of "terrorism" and how it does apply to American foreign policy - depending, of course, on your subjective point of view.
A truth about the message sent when the world compares 3,000 murdered Americans to over 30,000 dead Iraqis, killed as a result of an unprovoked attack on a nation which posed no immediate threat to anyone but itself. A truth about systematic suspension of basic human ethics, evidenced by years of White House policies sanctioning torture, rendition, and the murder of unarmed detainees.
A truth about subjugating an entire domestic population with a ginned-up, chronic atmosphere of fear, fueled by an unhealthy ration of insidious religious fundamentalism. A truth about an organized plan ten years in the making for the forced military domination of the Middle East. A truth about the labels actually affixed on the U.S. by a significant percentage of the world's population, precisely because of Mr. Bush's ongoing and imperial belligerence.
With even a quick glance at the decades-long ineffectiveness of American policy in Latin America, it's certainly easy to see why Mr. Belafonte's little outburst was so warmly received by Mr, Chavez. In addition, the Venezuelan leader is undoubtedly still stinging from Pat Robertson's horrid call for Chavez's assassination - and the total lack of immediate outrage directed toward the good reverend by Mr. Bush or the Majority Party.
Nevertheless, Mr. Belafonte committed a crucial error on the field, made even more tragic because it threatens the second-half momentum that's been shifting to our side of the ball. It would be encouraging - and probably naive - to believe that A) the "Goodwill Ambassador's" embarrassing diatribe will be swiftly and justifiably condemned as the breach of etiquette it was, and B) brushed aside by Conservatives just as quickly as the Robertson outburst, so we can all get back to addressing those transgressions listed above on national and legal levels.
I fear, however, that these truths will be drowned out in a sea of criticism to come. Nice goin', Harry. Thanks for nothin'. Many of us have agreed for some time that this President is, by strict definition, a "tyrant" and a "terrorist", and have been successfully winning over a few hearts and minds of our own in that respect. Too bad your performance on Saturday won't really help support that message at all.
This once, Harry, you picked the wrong time and place to start singing.
- - - - -
(NOTE: For those of you who are not yet subscribers to the NYT's "Times Select", the archived NYT article linked in the post is reprinted in the comments section below. Click "add your opinion" to access the full editorial.
Click here for details on purchasing "Times Select", and obtaining a 14-day free trial.)
posted by Bob P @ 3:30 AM
5 Comments:
A DIFFERENT LATIN AMERICA
(NYT) 419 words
Published: December 24, 2005
Bolivia's recent presidential election was almost as history making as Iraq's parliamentary vote. The winner, Evo Morales, will be the first member of the indigenous majority to run Bolivia since the conquistadors arrived nearly five centuries ago. His victory was one of the most decisive since the return of democracy more than two decades ago, ending an era of weak, unstable and ineffective governments.
But do not expect any toasts from the Bush administration. During the campaign, Mr. Morales advertised himself as Washington's ''nightmare.'' He opposes almost everything the Bush team stands for in Latin America, from combating coca leaf production to privatizing natural resources and liberalizing trade. His favorite Latin leaders are Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Fidel Castro of Cuba. And the political popularity of these anti-Washington positions is part of a growing regional trend.
The political balance in Latin America has clearly been shifting to the left. Nearly 300 million of South America's 365 million people live under left-wing governments. While many of these governments, like Brazil's and Chile's, have worked hard to cooperate with the United States, others, like Venezuela's, have gone out of their way to bait Washington. Mr. Morales gives every indication of following the Chávez approach. And there could be similar lurches to the demagogic left in the numerous Latin American elections that are soon coming up in places like Peru, Mexico and Nicaragua.
One explanation is that nearly two decades of Washington-recommended economic and trade policies have not done much for millions of urban and rural poor. Another is that the Bush administration has not shown much interest in addressing Latin American social problems. And Mr. Bush has done a terrible job of cultivating personal relationships with Latin American leaders.
Few countries adopted Washington's economic prescriptions more eagerly than Bolivia did in the 1980's and 90's. Yet despite considerable mineral and energy resources, it remains South America's poorest country, with 60 percent of its people living in poverty. The left-behind and angry poor voted for Mr. Morales in large numbers, as they have voted repeatedly for Mr. Chávez in Venezuela.
When denunciations of Yanqui imperialism in Latin America start coming from the presidential palaces as well as from the streets and opposition benches, Washington needs to change its ways. The friendship of neighbors is a terrible thing to lose.
©2005 The New York Times
- - - - -
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Hue and Cry has no affiliation with the originator of this article nor is The Hue and Cry endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Personally Bob, I think that Harry is absolutely right and shouldn't be afraid to say so. Chavez is fighting for his people, Bush is detaining his people without trial. Chavez gives the press great latitude to slander him daily, while Bush pays reporters tens of thousands to spin lies on his behalf. Chavez is turning over land to indigenous people, while Bush's energy department is stealing more land from Native Americans every day. By every measure, Bush fits the textbook definition of a terrorist, which is someone who uses violence against civilians to achieve a political objective.
Again, no argument with the content of Mr. Belafonte's statement, TA. It's the particular venue he chose, and the "drunk with glee" manner in which he said it, that I think only provides Bush apologists with ammunition.
Had Harry made these observations in a more serious and sober setting, his immense popularity might have given more weight to those truths about the Administration that need to be seen by all Americans. Instead, his giddy toast to Mr. Chavez gave the appearance of a man somewhat out of control.
And in an age where appearance counts for so much in the delivery of information, I think he's only helped to weaken the argument.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well, Chavez is no Boy Scout either. And in this country, Bush also gives the press great latitude to slander him daily - it's our Constitutional right here!
But the real issue at hand is not whether or not Belafonte expressed sentiments that are "true." It is "when" he did it, and in what capacity.
It also should go without saying that as a US citizen, especially in position of responsibility, you should make comments such as those "within" your own country - not in speeches in other countries.
As a US citizen it is my right, and responsibility, to speak about my country here. I have the right to speak my mind, air my grievances, and push for change. But it is all in the name of making this country a better place.
If however, I speak out while visiting other countries, it is not to make my country better - it is simply to degrade and slander my country in the international community - an act that can do irreparable harm.
There is a difference. And Harry Belafonte should know better. And if he doesn't, then he shouldn't be an ambassador for anyone...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home