Foreign-policy follies keep unfolding
Ishall restrain myself from remarking beyond this one line that the State of the Union extravaganza was held on Feb. 5, the start of the Asian New Year, celebrating the Year of the Pig.
The governmental ghastliness in the field of national security that was front and center last week was the presentation to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the leaders of our intelligence agencies of the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment. It is serious stuff. President Donald J. Trump did not like the fact that some of its judgments were at odds with his policies. So he called the intelligence chiefs and the report “naive” and said that the chiefs “should go back to school.” He later tried to backtrack on that statement, but the damage to him, to them and to the country was done.
We all know that America’s intelligence apparatus sometimes gets things wrong. Over the past century, they consistently overestimated the Soviet Union, until it collapsed. They thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They have misjudged the ability of the U.S. and Afghan governments to end the turmoil in Afghanistan so that we can bring our troops home.
At the same time, these agencies often get it right and are filled with very bright professionals whose lives and careers are devoted to national service. The idea that a dodgy real estate operator and ex-TV personality who does virtually nothing to inform himself about these issues knows better than they do, and calls them naive, is for us as a nation to defy logic and risk the consequences.
North Korea, a one-trick pony, is not going to give up its nuclear weapons. Iran, if for no other reason than to try to revive its weak economy, is observing the nuclear treaty it signed with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and Russia are mounting a major cyberthreat against the United States. All this, despite what Mr. Trump may choose to believe.
The other swamp Mr. Trump decided to wade into last week was Venezuela. For Latin American nations, it isn’t just about U.S. intervention in the affairs of Venezuela. Our doing so raises the specter of American interference in the internal matters of all the smaller, weaker nations with which we share this hemisphere.
The Trump administration and some of its geniuses, such as National Security Adviser John Bolton and Venezuela envoy Elliott Abrams, who was convicted of withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra affair, may think Venezuela is all about U.S. oil companies Chevron, Halliburton and Schlumberger. But most Latin Americans see potential U.S. military intervention in the context of the Bay of Pigs, the Central American Contra battles of the 1980s and other notorious U.S. military interference in places such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama and Grenada.
The idea of recognizing National Assembly president Juan Guaido, 35, as president of Venezuela, thus making two presidents, is exceptionally maladroit diplomacy. We made the same mistake with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s predecessor, the late Hugo Chavez. There was an attempted coup against him. We recognized it. It failed, and we were left looking exceptionally stupid, with Mr. Chavez quite rightly hating and fearing us. Here we go again.
There is no question that Mr. Maduro is an oaf and very crooked. He deserves to be overthrown, but by Venezuelans, not by tweets and vain threats of U.S. military action. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., with respect to Venezuela, is especially daft. He is predictably playing to the sentiments of South Florida’s Cuban exiles on the question, a very narrow, specialized slice of American opinion. How many of you out there would favor an American military invasion of Venezuela to replace Mr. Maduro with Mr. Guaido? One that was launched from Colombia, wrecking that country, too? Mr. Bolton wants to put 5,000 U.S. troops in Colombia. Our sons and daughters.
Meanwhile, the Russians and Chinese, who buy most of Venezuela’s oil, have expressed support for Mr. Maduro’s government. Has anyone talked to them about the problem? Russian President Vladimir V. Putin has been in touch with Mr. Maduro, whose presidency also has the support of the Venezuelan military. Mr. Trump’s sanctions against Venezuela’s state petroleum company will push up U.S. gas prices — just what we need right now with talk of recession in the wind.
The United States has promised Mr. Guaido’s “government” $20 million in food and medical aid. Russia has provided Venezuela $10 billion in recent years. The new president of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has not thrown his support to Mr. Guaido, probably because the United States has.
Mr. Trump’s rejection of the intelligence leaders’ counsel and insults to their agencies’ personnel constitute grand folly. The handling of the Venezuela affair is another prime example of an amateur-hour approach to foreign policy. Too bad for us.