SAN SALVADOR, 4 May 2005 — America is rarely shy about claiming a leadership role in world affairs. But these days, with US motives under suspicion in the aftermath of the Iraq war, American officials sometimes prefer the country be treated as any other, just one among many. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took that approach last week during her first official trip to Latin America. She found the region focused on the conflict between the United States and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the fiery populist who refers to his giant neighbor as “the empire.’’ But in country after country, Rice portrayed the issue as a conflict between a reckless regime and its neighbors, rather than a colossus versus a smaller rival.
“This is not a question of the United States and Venezuela,’’ she said last Wednesday during an appearance with Colombian Foreign Minister Carolina Barco in Bogota. “This is a question of what kind of hemisphere do we all want to see, and what states are going to contribute to it, and what states are not.’’
Rice’s language echoed what she and other US officials have been saying about several issues around the globe. She said the dispute over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program was a conflict between Kim Jong Il and five regional and world powers; and that dealing with Iran’s alleged secret nuclear weapons effort was also, above all, a global concern.
When a smaller country frames a conflict with the United States as David versus Goliath, it can win sympathy — especially at a time when many people overseas believe the United States has been throwing its weight around too much. Latin Americans may be especially receptive, since many have thought of the United States as a bully. US officials say when issues are framed as one-on-one, other countries seek to keep a distance, rather than help resolve the matter. Their view is, “Why do I want to get in the middle?’’ said one US diplomat, who asked for anonymity.
The Bush administration’s especially tough stance on Iran — insisting that it halt all nuclear activities — led many nations to see the dispute as one between Tehran and Washington. The United States would prefer that the United Nations’ nuclear agency and other nations that want to halt the spread of nuclear weapons also be involved. In March, the White House shifted ground, announcing its support for a diplomatic initiative led by England, France and Germany to offer Iran incentives to give up its program. In doing so, the administration made the issue seem less like another case of America confronting an Islamic nation it believed to be developing weapons of mass destruction.
In its dealings with Latin America, the Bush administration has run afoul of Chavez by contending that the Venezuelan, though democratically elected, has sought to marginalize his political opposition, weaken the judiciary, and suppress the press. Chavez, who champions his country’s poor, has regularly denounced the United States, and even taunted Rice personally.
The most visible issue between the United States and Venezuela this month arose from a stalemate over who would be the new secretary-general of the Organization of American States, a group long dominated by the United States whose principal role is to try to solve crises in the hemisphere.
Chavez pledged his support to Chilean Interior Minister Joe Miguel Insulza, and contended that the other candidate, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, would simply do US bidding.
A series of votes in early April resulted in a 17-17 deadlock and on Friday, key officials of OAS states discussed the issue in Santiago, where they were gathered for a meeting of a democracy promotion group, the Community of Democracies. By midday, Insulza appeared in a hotel hallway to tell reporters that Derbez had withdrawn and he was the consensus candidate.
US officials told American reporters traveling with Rice that she had steered the issue to a successful outcome during three hours of meetings in her hotel suite. They said she had insisted that Insulza, a left-leaning politician, make clear in his first public comments that he shared the US view that the OAS needed to hold its members to strict democratic standards. Insulza told reporters that democratically elected governments should be held accountable for governing democratically, a comment in line with the often-voiced US view — and one that could also be taken as a warning to Chavez.
But the decision that broke the deadlock was presented differently to the Latin American audience.
In his announcement, Insulza gave generous credit for the breakthrough to the Mexican foreign minister for selflessly withdrawing his candidacy. Insulza didn’t thank Rice or the Americans, or even mention them. Rice, for her part, appeared with Insulza and other OAS officials at the announcement. But she gave no sign that she played a special role; she didn’t say a word.
A few hours late, at the trip’s final stop, in San Salvador, a Salvadoran reporter asked Rice what role the Americans had played in the deal.
The US role was simply, “with several other countries, seeking a way forward to consensus,’’ she answered.
