Worse Than a Crime
Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is, to borrow the words of Talleyrand, "Worse than a crime, it's a blunder."
Leaving aside the question of whether or not it is ever proper for a government to kill the leader of a rival state (US special forces and intelligence services are still prohibited from carrying out such a mission.) there is little justification for the US to whack Chavez.
Robertson is speculating wildly that Chavez might provide support to terrorists. Unlike Iraq Venezuela is not a muslim country and is unlikely to be of much value as a jihadist recruiting or training ground. I have yet to see any indications that Chavez is developing nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Chavez has forged a close relationship with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, but Castro, for all his faults, has never been closely aligned with terrorist groups.
That's not to say Chavez is a good guy, or that he might not become a serious threat in time. He has pretty much short circuited Venezuelan democracy, establishing himself as a fairly typical latin American strongman in the mold of Juan Peron. In time he could, if he choses, use revenue from Venezuela's nationalized oil industry to become a regional power or even, following the steps of Saddam Hussein, begin to tinker with weapons of mass destruction.
Now if Robertson wants to call attention to a possible future threat from Chavez, that would be fine and maybe even edifying. The last thing the US needs on top of its other foreign policy problems is the revival of latin American communism or the rise of an aggressive Peronism, and if the opening presents itself it would be better to begin dealing with Chavez sooner rather than later. But to call for Chavez to be murdered is irresponsible and guarantees Robertson the worst kind of attention. Rather than spur a serious discussion of the situation in Venezuela, Robertson has triggered an outpouring of well-deserved criticism which is bound to translate into a less than healthy sympathy for Chavez.
Of course, the administration is not going to take any action against the Venezuelan government, military or diplomatic, open or covert. Chavez is not that great a threat yet and Robertson, for all the attention he receives, is not all that influential. Robertson's comments were a huge blunder, and in this case the blunder of manufacturing sympathy for Chavez may prove to be worse than the crime of calling impotently for his assassination.
Oh well, it could have been worse. At least Robertson didn't claim that God wants us to assassinate anyone.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not it is ever proper for a government to kill the leader of a rival state (US special forces and intelligence services are still prohibited from carrying out such a mission.) there is little justification for the US to whack Chavez.
Robertson is speculating wildly that Chavez might provide support to terrorists. Unlike Iraq Venezuela is not a muslim country and is unlikely to be of much value as a jihadist recruiting or training ground. I have yet to see any indications that Chavez is developing nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Chavez has forged a close relationship with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, but Castro, for all his faults, has never been closely aligned with terrorist groups.
That's not to say Chavez is a good guy, or that he might not become a serious threat in time. He has pretty much short circuited Venezuelan democracy, establishing himself as a fairly typical latin American strongman in the mold of Juan Peron. In time he could, if he choses, use revenue from Venezuela's nationalized oil industry to become a regional power or even, following the steps of Saddam Hussein, begin to tinker with weapons of mass destruction.
Now if Robertson wants to call attention to a possible future threat from Chavez, that would be fine and maybe even edifying. The last thing the US needs on top of its other foreign policy problems is the revival of latin American communism or the rise of an aggressive Peronism, and if the opening presents itself it would be better to begin dealing with Chavez sooner rather than later. But to call for Chavez to be murdered is irresponsible and guarantees Robertson the worst kind of attention. Rather than spur a serious discussion of the situation in Venezuela, Robertson has triggered an outpouring of well-deserved criticism which is bound to translate into a less than healthy sympathy for Chavez.
Of course, the administration is not going to take any action against the Venezuelan government, military or diplomatic, open or covert. Chavez is not that great a threat yet and Robertson, for all the attention he receives, is not all that influential. Robertson's comments were a huge blunder, and in this case the blunder of manufacturing sympathy for Chavez may prove to be worse than the crime of calling impotently for his assassination.
Oh well, it could have been worse. At least Robertson didn't claim that God wants us to assassinate anyone.
posted by A. at 10:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home