U.S. meddling and threats
An editorial from the Mexican newspaper La Jornada
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Dec. 11 asked Latin American nations to abstain from developing ties with Iran, whose government stands accused by Washington and the European Union of wishing to develop nuclear weapons.
She referred to Iran as “the major supporter, promoter, and exporter of terrorism in the world today” and described as “a really bad idea” the recent rapprochement between Teheran and some countries in the region, such as Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia, although she named only the last two.
If those countries “want to flirt with Iran,” she said, “they should take a look at what the consequences might well be for them, and we hope that they will think twice.”
Clinton’s statements reinforce the perception that, despite Barack Obama’s arrival in the White House almost one year ago, the spirit of unilateral and arbitrary meddling that characterized Washington’s foreign policy during the era of George W. Bush remains intact.
Someone should remind the head of the State Department that no country has the right to become the judge of others, to approve or censure their performance in internal affairs, much less harass them for their sovereign decisions, such as establishing diplomatic relations with other nations.
If what Washington wishes is to deactivate the risk of a spiraling arms race – atomic or not – in the region and the world, it should not resort to threats like the ones issued by Clinton. Instead, it should revert the generalized perception that its own foreign policy represents a danger for nations that, like Venezuela and Bolivia, have decided to distance themselves from the United States’ political and economic precepts and have criticized the depredation and barbarity practiced worldwide in recent years by the White House and the Pentagon.
One of the factors that facilitated the rapprochement of Latin American to Iran and other countries was precisely the announcement that the United States will operate military bases in Colombia, a step that violates that country’s sovereignty and constitutes an element of regional tension.
As regards Iran, the words used Dec. 11 by Clinton not only represent a step backward from the gestures of détente that President Obama made toward the Islamic republic in the early months of his administration but also reprise the central points of the campaign of harassment waged against Teheran by the Bush administration. They also reduce the chances that Washington will find a reliable ally that might be a factor of stability in the stormy Middle East.
In sum, the statements made by the leader of the State Department allow us to gauge the degree of imperial arrogance that still permeates U.S. foreign policy. They constitute, along with the speech delivered Dec. 10 by Obama in Oslo, a grim setback to the hopes raised by the arrival of the Afro-American politician to the Oval Office.
