In Sunday's New York Times there is an article discussing Venezuela's sponsorship of terrorism. The Colombian government claims to have recovered files in Ecuador connecting the Venezuelan government with the FARC. This hardly comes as a surprise to anyone. Hugo Chavez's sympathy towards the FARC is notorious. However, the United States still has not placed Venezuela on its list of State Sponsers of Terrorism. Why is this? Are the motivations purely political....or economic....or both. The United States is a consumer of Venezuelan oil. Despite the rhetoric on both sides, the countries continue to do business. Who is the biggest hypocrite. Hugo Chavez, who at every turn, calls the United States an evil empire, yet continues to sell us oil. Or the United States government, who calls Hugo Chavez a despotic dictator and continues to purchase oil from him. Which, they now in turn, is used to sponsor terrorism aboard. Though some might disagree, it would appear that the United States "War on Terror" and those who sponsor it does not begin within. Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/world/americas/30colombia.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I guess this is one of those very fine lines we walk. It's really hard to say what's right. I suppose if we do come down on sponsor's of terrorism we should be willing to back that up. Of course at the same time, by isolating such states it often only angers them and drives them to such action even more. Engagement may be a much better combatant of state sponsored terror, especially in the case of states such as Venezuela which are relatively capable of surviving without U.S. support. Also, while Hugo Chavez's connection to the FARC does seem undeniable, I suppose it is possible that we may not have any concrete connections between Venezuela and the FARC. More than likely if that is an argument we use, it's more for the sake of simply justifying ourselves rather than something we truly believe. Personally though, I feel like it's a case by case basis. We need to do whatever is the best way to eliminate terrorism depending on our interactions with different states, which does not mean that we should cut off any state that supports terrorism.
It remains to be seen how strong the ties really are between Chavez and the FARC. However, right now we have more to lose by halting rather than continuing business with Venezuela. The FARC doesn't blow up buildings in the U.S. or attack our military bases abroad. They are certainly a nuisance in other ways, but when it comes to terrorism they are low on the priority list. Venezuela has been doing business with the U.S. for years. There is little reason to make the people of Venezuela suffer economically due to a weak link between a blowhard dictator and a third-rate terrorist organization.
It does not appear that this is the first time the US has been hypocritical when it comes to issues with oil. The US backed Iraq when they were fighting the Iran-Iraq war. This included backing Saddam Hussein. Then we turned our back on Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. I am not saying we should not have stopped backing Saddam, but our reasoning was partially because Saddam was a terrorist. If I remember correctly Saddam was a terrorist long before we started backing him up, yet we still helped him out. All in all what I am trying to say is that Scott is right. We deal with international issues on a case by case basis, at times we deal with unsavory people because they have what we need. With the Olympics approaching I believe we will see China’s name splashed all over the news. They have been accused of sponsoring terrorism domestically with the Monks in Tibet and the Uighurs in the Xinjang province, yet again, we are still doing business with them, lots of business.
Post a Comment