Here is the URL for Eugene Robinson's WaPo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002814.htmlHere is an excellent response that a friend of mine sent Robinson:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: When Slapped?
From: "Gunnar B Gundersen" <ggunders@willamette.edu>
Date: Tue, April 21, 2009 10:25 am
To: eugenerobinson@washpost.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Robinson,
I read your article, "When Slapped, Slap Back."
It is a sign of the arrogance of people in the United States that having
Latin Americans discuss the atrocities, interference, and undemocratic
manipulation in the affairs of our hemispheric neighbors is considered a
"slap." I suppose it would be a "slap" if it were not the simple truth. I
wonder what Rigoberta Menchu would have to say about your analysis.
Also, you fall into the trap of describing these actions and attitudes as
something of the "past."
You know full well that these actions and attitudes are ongoing right now.
Just ask Evo Morales who has recently escaped an assassination attempt
and concluded that he should expel the U.S. ambassador from his country
because of U.S. meddling. I'm sure he did not take such an action lightly
or without reason.
Mr. Obama was right to take a "listen and learn" attitude. More arrogance
and more "slapping back" is not going to get us anywhere.
I'm surprised that someone who has shown a commitment to seeking the truth
and to social justice, such as yourself, would find offense at the leaders
of the Nicaragua, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile,
etc. standing up and stating simple truths and also arguing,
appropriately, that our policy toward Cuba should change - and that our
relations should be based on mutual respect.
Why do you question Chavez' motives but you don't say anything critical
about Lula da Silva, Cristina Kirchner, or Michele Bachelet? They all
have the same positions about the Cuba issue and about the need for mutual
respect among nations. Why are you picking on Chavez?
Why would you expect President Obama to be intimidated or angered by
someone giving him a book that accurately describes the history of how
Latin America and the U.S/European - Latin America relationship got to be
in this state of affairs?
I would expect George Bush to be cowardly and to walk out of a meeting -
or just not show up - or to run away if he saw Chavez or Morales across
the room; something he basically did several times in such summit
meetings. However, President Obama showed that he is not a coward as is
GW Bush. He showed the courage to walk the walk and not just talk the
talk. As we all know from life experience, bullies are really cowards.
Do you want President Obama to be a bully?
You also clearly mis-represent who President Chavez is and what the
situation is in Venezuela.
I have been visiting Venezuela for more than 30 years, and have lived and
worked there (23 years ago). So, I have witnessed firsthand the
administration of all of the governments of Venezuela since 1977. I now
visit about once a year. I can testify that democracy, freedom of speech,
freedom of movement, freedom to associate, freedom to protest, freedom to
start businesses is at the highest level I have ever seen it, plus there
is more equity in terms of access to education, health care, and the legal
and political system. Of course, there are problems but we, in the U.S.,
have a lot of problems too.
Would you have us return to the days of "backyard" diplomacy?
You correctly stated that to pretend that Venezuela, or any other country
in Latin America (including Cuba) represent a threat to the U.S. is
absurd.
If so, then why use underhanded and opaque political and financial means
through the National Endowment for Democracy, USIA, and USAID to interfere
in the affairs of our neighbors?
Imagine the outrage if Brazil, Argentina, or Venezuela were actively
funding and directing so-called "civic society" groups in the United
States to launch campaigns in opposition to the U.S. government, including
the funding of electoral politics, including dirty tricks and outright
violence. I believe such actions would be illegal, condemned, and
prosecuted. Yet, through NED, USIA, USAID and other even more obscure
means the United States Government and U.S. corporations frequently
interfere in Venezuela and throughout Latin America.
Why don't you investigate the NED and see what they are really doing in
Latin America and around the world?
Your analysis is off this time Mr. Robinson. President Obama handled
himself very well and you could tell in one exchange that was videotaped
but not heard that he and President Chavez had a very direct and frank
exchange. It seemed clear by the body language that President Obama was
clearly saying, "Well, Mr. Chavez, you do this, and we can do that."
Neither of them were smiling but they also were not disrespectful of each
other. It looked like two self-confident individuals having a serious and
substantive exchange. By focusing on the "window dressing" moments of the
summit you have missed the point of what was important about the
encounter. The USA has re-joined America in a way that creates an opening
for a positive future in the region rather than one overshadowed by
bullying, intimidation, back-stabbing, bribery, and coercion.
Mr. Obama clearly knows little about Latin America, by his own admission.
Well, I'd say the Summit was a good primer. Maybe you should also read
Galeano's book, which is available in translation by the way.
Thank you,
Gunnar Gundersen
Salem, Oregon