According to the Bush administration, it is Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s desire to purchase weapons from Russia that threatens to destabilize the Andean region, not the $3 billion in military aid that Washington has provided to Colombia over the past five years. Likewise, in the Middle East, it is Syria’s efforts to obtain purely defensive anti-aircraft missiles that pose a threat to that region, not the $1 billion a year in U.S. military aid to Israel. And on the nuclear front, while there is no evidence that Iran is intending to build nuclear weapons, it is the regime in Tehran that is threatening to further destabilize the region, not President Bush’s apparent pledge to support any future Israeli attack against Iran. Meanwhile, North Korea’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in order to develop nuclear weapons makes the Asian nation a “rogue state,” but Washington’s abandonment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) to build its missile defense system, which could lead to the weaponization of space, apparently does not justify the same anti-multilateralist label being applied to the United States.
Tag Archives: George W Bush
The U.S. ambassador to Colombia, Anne Patterson, announced last week that the United States will provide Colombia with counterterrorism aid as part of Washington’s new war on terrorism. But many critics are concerned the new aid signifies an escalation of U.S. involvement in Colombia that might result in direct military intervention. Patterson’s announcement followed on the heels of a declaration by the State Department’s top counterterrorism official, Francis X. Taylor, that Washington’s strategy for fighting terrorism in the western hemisphere will include, “where appropriate, as we are doing in Afghanistan, the use of military power.” Taylor left little doubt about who would be the “appropriate” target when he stated that Colombia’s largest guerrilla group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), “is the most dangerous international terrorist group based in this hemisphere.”
The US loves to point out flaws in other countries’ elections. We slammed Yugoslavia’s September presidential election because international observers were not allowed to verify the fairness of the electoral process, and Peru’s recent elections after international observers said the ruling party denied opposition candidates access to the media. The same observers also accused Peru’s ruling party of using state police power to restrict the activities of opposition candidates. And government policies resulting in the disenfranchisement of ethnic minorities have often led to elections being condemned as undemocratic by outside observers. But US elections are above such unpleasantness, right? Wrong.