Thursday, September 01, 2005
Types of Enemies
At this moment, diehard Al Qaeda types are undoubtedly celebrating the flooding of New Orleans and the devastation of the Gulf Coast, attributing it to Allah's vengeance against the Great Satan or somesuch. I say this because some deranged clerics last January deemed the tsunami Allah's retribution against the sinful beaches of Thailand (but isn't it odd that Allah smote so many devout Muslims in Indonesia to get at a few hundred Western tourists?).
Islamist schadenfreude over anyone else's misfortune isn't news, but I mention this to highlight the reactions of a couple of local boogeymen to the hurricane.
The Cuban parliament observed a moment of silence in memory of the victims, before beginning the day's business: condemning the US occupation in Iraq (Reuters).
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, though condemning Bush for his relative inaction, has offered soldiers and relief workers to aid in affected regions (AP)
There's something salutary about these gestures, even as they come from adversaries of the United States. I don't like either man especially - Castro has created a durable, vicious police state, and Chavez is on his way toward doing so. But it's worth recognizing a fundamental distinction between types of adversaries: those who accept a shared humanity, and those who don't.
Castro and Chavez, as bad as their domestic policies are, have reacted humanely to America's calamity. It might be best to thank them for their concern. Not because any lasting bond can be forged with them, but because the United States has no need to exacerbate relations with either Cuba or Venezuela and finding a way to stabilize ties - especially with Chavez - would avert the prospect of a disastrous oil shortfall. The loss of the Gulf Coast refineries, on top of the current high price of oil, is bad enough. The loss of Venezuelan sources from a continued degeneration of relations with Caracas could be disastrous (indeed this was the precipitating factor of a prolonged downturn in a forecast that appeared in a recent edition of The Atlantic).
I reiterate: in the long run, Latin America would benefit from both of these men leaving the scene, but that cannot be a leading priority for the United States with so much else at stake. A wise administration would accept the proferred olive branches, indicate an interest in dialogue, and do whatever possible to keep these conflicts on ice. Seriously evaluating the case of Luis Posada, a Cuban wanted in Venezuela for terrorism, would be a good start. Certainly, Posada appears far from innocent (CSM). The Bush administration's rigidity on Cuba and ties to anti-Castro hardliners probably preclude such an action, but it's helpful to think about how a wiser administration would formulate policy. These bozos only have another 3+ years left in office, after all. There are enemies who hate you reflexively and conditional adversaries. It would be nice to have an administration that could sense and exploit the inherent difference between the two.
Islamist schadenfreude over anyone else's misfortune isn't news, but I mention this to highlight the reactions of a couple of local boogeymen to the hurricane.
There's something salutary about these gestures, even as they come from adversaries of the United States. I don't like either man especially - Castro has created a durable, vicious police state, and Chavez is on his way toward doing so. But it's worth recognizing a fundamental distinction between types of adversaries: those who accept a shared humanity, and those who don't.
Castro and Chavez, as bad as their domestic policies are, have reacted humanely to America's calamity. It might be best to thank them for their concern. Not because any lasting bond can be forged with them, but because the United States has no need to exacerbate relations with either Cuba or Venezuela and finding a way to stabilize ties - especially with Chavez - would avert the prospect of a disastrous oil shortfall. The loss of the Gulf Coast refineries, on top of the current high price of oil, is bad enough. The loss of Venezuelan sources from a continued degeneration of relations with Caracas could be disastrous (indeed this was the precipitating factor of a prolonged downturn in a forecast that appeared in a recent edition of The Atlantic).
I reiterate: in the long run, Latin America would benefit from both of these men leaving the scene, but that cannot be a leading priority for the United States with so much else at stake. A wise administration would accept the proferred olive branches, indicate an interest in dialogue, and do whatever possible to keep these conflicts on ice. Seriously evaluating the case of Luis Posada, a Cuban wanted in Venezuela for terrorism, would be a good start. Certainly, Posada appears far from innocent (CSM). The Bush administration's rigidity on Cuba and ties to anti-Castro hardliners probably preclude such an action, but it's helpful to think about how a wiser administration would formulate policy. These bozos only have another 3+ years left in office, after all. There are enemies who hate you reflexively and conditional adversaries. It would be nice to have an administration that could sense and exploit the inherent difference between the two.
