[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 43 (Wednesday, April 17, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1382-H1383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOREIGN POLICY

  (Mr. FRANK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming sadly clearer that the Bush 
administration foreign policy consists of a successful military victory 
in Afghanistan, in a bipartisan fashion, with the military it inherited 
from Bill Clinton, but a series of muddles, mistakes, and errors 
elsewhere.
  Most recently, we had the administration outrageously both 
incompetent and insensitive with regard to democratic values with 
regard to Venezuela. There was a coup in Venezuela against a president 
for whom I would not have voted and who I would wish would be voted out 
of office, but the notion that it is okay for America to disregard our 
supposed commitment to democratic values because we do not like the 
president who was elected is unfortunate, and it is even worse when it 
is done in such an incompetent fashion.
  Our administration was congratulating the victors in this coup long 
after it became clear that the coup had not become successful. Someone 
said in the French revolution that something was not just a crime, but 
was a blunder. From the standpoint of defending democracy, the Bush 
administration in Venezuela managed to do both.
  I include for the Record a very interesting article from the 
Washington Post of April 16, entitled ``U.S. Seen as Weak Patron of 
Latin Democracy,'' as well as a very good article on the same day, 
April 16, from the New York Times by Paul Krugman. They both document 
the extent to which we both fail to defend our values, and even do that 
in a wholly incompetent fashion.
  The articles referred to are as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 16, 2002]

                         Losing Latin American

                           (By Paul Krugman)

       Many people, myself included, would agree that Hugo Chavez 
     is not the president Venezuela needs. He happens, however, to 
     be the president Venezuela elected--freely, fairly and 
     constitutionally. That's why all the democratic nations of 
     the Western Hemisphere, however much they may dislike Mr. 
     Chavez, denounced last week's attempted coup against him.
       All the democratic nations, that is, except one.
       Here's how the BBC put it: ``Far from condemning the ouster 
     of a democratically elected president, U.S. officials blamed 
     the crisis on Mr. Chavez himself,'' and they were ``clearly 
     pleased with the result''--even though the new interim 
     government proceeded to abolish the legislature, the 
     judiciary and the Constitution. They were presumably less 
     pleased when the coup attempt collapsed. The BBC again: 
     ``President Chavez's comeback has . . . left Washington 
     looking rather stupid.'' The national security adviser, 
     Condoleezza Rice, didn't help that impression when, 
     incredibly, she cautioned the restored president to ``respect 
     constitutional processes.''
       Surely the worst thing about this episode is the betrayal 
     of our democratic principles; ``of the people, by the people, 
     for the people'' isn't supposed to be followed by the words 
     ``as long as it suits U.S. interests.''

[[Page H1383]]

       But even viewed as realpolitik, our benign attitude toward 
     Venezuela's coup was remarkably foolish.
       It is very much in our interest that Latin America break 
     out of its traditional political cycle, in which crude 
     populism alternated with military dictatorship. Everything 
     that matters to the U.S.--trade, security drugs, you name 
     it--will be better if we have stable neighbors.
       But how can such stability be achieved? In the 1990's there 
     seemed, finally, to be a formula; call it the new world 
     order. Economic reform would end the temptations of populism; 
     political reform would end the risk of dictatorship. And in 
     the 1990's, on their own initiative but with encouragement 
     from the United States, most Latin American nations did 
     indeed embark on a dramatic process of reform both economic 
     and political.
       The actual results have been mixed. On the economic side, 
     where hopes were initially highest, things have not gone too 
     well. There are no economic miracles in Latin America, and 
     there have been some notable disasters, Argentina's crisis 
     being the latest. The best you can say is that some of the 
     disaster victims, notably Mexico, seem to have recovered 
     their balance (with a lot of help, one must say, from the 
     Clinton administration) and moved onto a path of steady, 
     but modest, economic growth.
       Yet economic disasters have not destabilized the region. 
     Mexico's crisis in 1995, Brazil's crisis in 1999, even 
     Argentina's current crisis did not deliver those countries 
     into the hands either of radicals or of strongmen. The reason 
     is that the political side has gone better than anyone might 
     have expected. Latin America has become a region of 
     democracies--and these democracies seem remarkably robust.
       So while the U.S. may have hoped for a new Latin stability 
     based on vibrant prosperity, what it actually got was 
     stability despite economic woes, thanks to democracy. Things 
     could be a lot worse.
       Which brings us to Venezuela. Mr. Chavez is a populist in 
     the traditional mold, and his policies have been incompetent 
     and erratic. Yet he was fairly elected, in a region that has 
     come to understand the importance of democratic legitimacy. 
     What did the United States hope to gain from his overthrow? 
     True, he has spouted a lot of anti-American rhetoric, and 
     been a nuisance to our diplomacy. But he is not a serious 
     threat.
       Yet there we were, reminding everyone of the bad old days 
     when any would-be right-wing dictator could count on U.S. 
     backing.
       As it happens, we aligned ourselves with a peculiarly 
     incompetent set of plotters. Mr. Chavez has alienated a broad 
     spectrum of his people; the demonstrations that led to his 
     brief overthrow began with a general strike by the country's 
     unions. But the short-lived coup-installed government 
     included representatives of big business and the wealthy--
     full stop. No wonder the coup collapsed.
       But even if the coup had succeeded, our behavior would have 
     been very stupid. We had a good thing going--a new 
     hemispheric atmosphere of trust, based on shared democratic 
     values. How could we so casually throw it away?
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 16, 2002]

              U.S. Seen as Weak Patron of Latin Democracy

                           (By Karen DeYoung)

       The Bush administration said yesterday that its policy 
     toward the dizzying events in Venezuela had been fully in 
     tune with the rest of the hemisphere, and that it will 
     continue to work with its Latin American partners to preserve 
     Venezuelan democracy and justice.
       ``We'll be guided by the Inter-American Democratic 
     Charter,'' said State Department spokesman Philip Reeker, 
     referring to the Organization of American States' seven-
     month-old agreement to condemn and investigate the overthrow 
     of any democratically elected OAS member government and, if 
     necessary, suspend the offender's membership.
       But much of the rest of the hemisphere saw the 
     administration's response to the last five days in Venezuela 
     in a somewhat different light. In the view of a number of 
     Latin American governments, they were the ones who rose to 
     defend democracy, while the United States came limping along 
     only when it became clear late Saturday that the Friday 
     morning coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had 
     only temporarily succeeded.
       ``The United States handled it badly, as is its wont,'' 
     said a former Mexican official with close ties to the 
     government of President Vicente Fox. U.S. policy, he said, is 
     ``multilateralism a la carte and democracy a la carte.''
       A senior administration official yesterday repeated denials 
     of allegations by Chavez supporters that the United States 
     had encouraged the coup, although he acknowledged that U.S. 
     officials had met with a number of Chavez opponents. ``They 
     came here . . . to complain and to inform us and to tell us 
     about the situation,'' he said. ``We said we can't tell you 
     to remove a president or not to remove a president . . . we 
     did not wink, not even wink at anyone.''
       Few Latin American officials appeared to believe the United 
     States was involved.
       But they expressed a rueful lack of surprise at what they 
     saw as the administration's failure, despite President Bush's 
     frequent statements on the importance of hemispheric 
     relations, to publicly oppose it once it happened.
       Instead, diplomats concentrated on what the Latin Americans 
     had done themselves, saying they were pleased that the OAS, a 
     plodding, historically powerless body that has long been 
     dominated by Washington, had actually managed to convene an 
     emergency meeting on Saturday, adopt a strong resolution 
     condemning both the coup and the violence that led up to it--
     apparently instigated by Chavez backers--and dispatch its 
     secretary general on a fact-finding mission to Venezuela.
       They were pleased that, despite their near-universal 
     dislike of Chavez, a left-leaning populist who has irritated 
     or worried most of them, they had defended democratic 
     principles that have been so often violated in many of their 
     own countries.
       ``It's an example of how it should work.'' said a diplomat 
     who asked not to be named.
       As recently as Friday, President Bush hailed the Democratic 
     Charter in the White House's annual Pan-American Day 
     proclamation, calling it an antidote to terror. The charter 
     was approved by the 34 OAS member nations in Lima, Peru, on 
     Sept. 11, the day of the terrorist attacks in New York and 
     Washington. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell attended the 
     gathering, but had to leave early to attend to more pressing 
     matters in Washington.
       The charter put more teeth in an earlier OAS democracy 
     declaration signed in Santiago, Chile, in 1991. It was 
     invoked on a number of occasions by President George H.W. 
     Bush, and by President Bill Clinton, when unconstitutional 
     actions threatened the governments of Peru, Paraguay, 
     Guatemala and Ecuador over the last decade. The current Bush 
     administration has referred to the documents as symbols of 
     the democracy that now prevails in all but one nation in the 
     hemisphere, Cuba.
       Yet the first time elected governance was interrupted under 
     Bush's watch, his administration punted. Last Friday, South 
     American presidents attending an unrelated meeting in Costa 
     Rica broke off to sign a resolution condemning the apparent 
     coup that had overthrown Chavez that morning and invoking the 
     Inter-American Democratic Charter. As they were composing the 
     document, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was announcing 
     in Washington that Chavez had provoked the crisis and 
     resigned. ``A transitional civilian government has been 
     installed,'' Fleischer said. ``This government has promised 
     early elections.'' There was no mention of the Democratic 
     Charter.
       Most member countries have ambassadors at OAS headquarters 
     here in addition to their envoys to the U.S. government. But 
     while the OAS prepared Friday afternoon to convene an 
     emergency meeting required under the charter, the Bush 
     administration summoned all the hemisphere's bilateral 
     ambassadors to a State Department briefing. According to 
     several participants, Assistant Secretary Otto J. Reich told 
     them the United Sates did not approve of coups and had not 
     promoted this one, but that Chavez had it coming.
       When the OAS meeting began Saturday morning, a Caracas 
     businessman was occupying the presidential palace. Roger 
     Noriega, the U.S. ambassador to the OAS, took the floor to 
     chastise member states for being less concerned about 
     Chavez's anti-democratic behavior over the past 24 months 
     than events of the last 24 hours.
       But as the day wore on, Venezuela's new president started 
     taking some anti-democratic actions of his own, dissolving 
     the National Assembly, shutting the Supreme Court and voiding 
     the constitution. Chavez supporters flooded the streets.
       ``As it started to unravel,'' a diplomat said, ``the Untied 
     States became less and less eager to try to lead'' the 
     debate.
       When Sunday morning found Chavez back in power in Caracas, 
     Latin American governments hailed it as a victory for 
     democracy. White House national security adviser Condoleezza 
     Rice told NBC's ``Meet the Press'' viewers that she hoped 
     Chavez had learned his lesson.
       At the Sate Department, Reeker described the Venezuelan 
     situation as ``fluid,'' and said the administration was 
     continuing to monitor it. The important thing, he said, ``is 
     the mission of the OAS. We want the OAS and the Democratic 
     Charter that countries of the region signed up to play an 
     important role in this process.''

                          ____________________