The change I believe in

Looks like this:

President Alvaro Colom [of Guatemala] Wednesday formally apologized to the victims of the country's 1960-1996 civil war, 10 years after a UN-sponsored report came out on the atrocities largely committed by the military.

"As president of the republic, head of government and commander in chief of the army I ask for your forgiveness, because the system was at fault," Colom said at a ceremony on National Dignification Day commemorating the estimated 200,000 civil war victims. [...]

"If by 'genocide' is meant the intention of destroying fully or in part a national, ethnic, racial, religious or political group, in Guatemala there was genocide; there was ethnocide and also the systematic destruction of religious, political, social, university and indigenous leaders," the president said.

This comes on the heels of Colom's apology to Cuba for Guatemala's involvement in the Bay of Pigs:

Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom apologized to Cuba on Tuesday for his country's having allowed the CIA to train exiles in the Central American country for the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion.

"Today I want to ask Cuba's forgiveness for having offered our country, our territory, to prepare an invasion of Cuba," Colom said during a speech at the University of Havana. "It wasn't us, but it was our territory."

He added that he wished to apologize "as president and head of state, and as commander-in-chief of the Guatemalan army."

Notice that in both cases Colom specifically said he was apologizing in all of his official capacities, so there'd be no doubt about the significance of what he was saying.  Note also that the wrongs Colom apologized for were either carried out or supported by the United States—yet he didn't hide behind that fact to downplay Guatemala's responsibility.

Liberals think that people like me are just unwilling to give Obama a chance, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.  If Obama would do nothing more than offer official apologies like those Colom offered, even for just these U.S. crimes and no others, I'd reassess my entire stance toward him.  That would represent genuine, meaningful change to me.  That's how pathetically low my bar is.  All I'd require would be an apology for decades-old, well-documented crimes like these (or others like them)—mere words that would cost Obama nothing but a few minutes of his time, are the very least we owe our victims, and which not only couldn't possibly do any damage to the U.S. but would improve our standing throughout Latin America and the world.

And yet here in reality, talking about this minuscule gesture as though it's a serious possibility is as ludicrous as hoping that a pit viper will learn to play Für Elise on the banjo.  We'll see "change" with Obama, of course, but it will all be safely within the context of U.S. economic, domestic, and foreign policy as they've existed for decades—an extra 15 minutes of recreation every day from the new camp commandant.

No, as I've said before, the real change in this hemisphere is in Latin America.  And what gives me hope—again and again—is witnessing the end of right-wing dominance there, and moves toward true independence and a reckoning with the past.  Congratulations to Colom for taking more steps in that direction.

Comments

[Gnome Chomsky]

mere words that would cost Obama nothing but a few minutes of his time

Well, you know that's not really true - he'd be run out of town by 2012 if not impeached before then. And, it absolutely must be stressed, I don't mean that as a defense of Obama, but as a condemnation of the system that is bigger than him or any other politician. American exceptionalism is still too much like the air you breathe for the majority of the country for any such thing to be acceptable.

[SteveB]

Well, more than $600 billion in carbon taxes seems like something.

[empty]

Before 2001 I had expected the US hammer to land on Latin America because of the developments in various countries of the region. It is somewhat ironic but I think Al-Qaida and George W. unwittingly gave Latin America the breathing space they needed to get on their feet.

[SteveB]

This seems significant, too.

[empty]

SteveB
This has more to do with the decision than any notion of justice.

The decision to move Mr. Marri to a civilian court should give the Obama administration time to sidestep that issue for now as it sets about a large-scale review of detention policies that would affect those prisoners being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and those who may later be captured on suspicion of involvement with terrorism.

IIRC the Bush administration also used similar tactics on the eve of a hearing they feared would go against them.

[John Caruso]

That's an excellent point about the obsession with al Qaeda giving Latin America breathing room, empty, and I think there's a lot of truth to it. Actually I'd say Iraq as much or more, since prior to the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration still had time to back the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela.

Gnome, I wasn't clear, but I actually meant "cost" in terms of preparation, legislative action, and so on—i.e., all he'd have to do is issue a statement. You're right that he'd likely pay some long-term political price, but I'd say the worst it might be is losing the next election, not impeachment (since there'd be no grounds). And take out Cuba from the apology and make it just Guatemala and El Salvador—about which most Americans wouldn't have strong feelings (unlike Cuba and possibly Nicaragua)—and I think even a detailed formal apology might end up being a non-event for Obama in terms of domestic politics.

Steve, even setting aside empty's (important) point about al-Marri's trial, do you really see those as significant, meaningful changes that contradict my "safely within the context of U.S. economic, domestic, and foreign policy as they've existed for decades" statement? Or are you just playing devil's advocate?

[Gnome Chomsky]

Ah, okay, I see. And to be clear, I didn't mean he'd be impeached for that per se, just that breaking with the taken-for-granted attitude that if we do it, it's right by definition, would create such ill-will among members of both parties that they'd be driven to take him down for anything they could dredge up.

[SteveB]

empty:
Do we want suspected terrorists to be tried in civilian courts or not? Yes, with this decision the Obama administration was able to avoid losing in the Supreme Court, but they did it by basically agreeing to do what the plaintiffs had demanded that they do.

The article says:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Thursday that legal teams would reassess each of the inmates at Guantánamo to decide whether they should be prosecuted for criminal offenses or released.

I see "prosecuted for criminal offenses" and "released." I don't see "held indefinitely without trial", and I think that's progress.

John;
The phrase "safely within the context of U.S. economic, domestic, and foreign policy as they've existed for decades" leaves quite a bit of room for maneuver, doesn't it? It could include keeping troops in Iraq, or withdrawing troops from Iraq; raising taxes on the rich, or lowering taxes on the rich. Even within the "context" you prescribe, there are policy changes happening right now, which most people would consider significant.

So I see Obama changing some policies in ways that I would consider significant, but when I bring these examples forward, I'm told that the changes aren't really significant at all, because they're not...what? I guess I'm not seeing why an apology to Guatemala meets your test, but proposing to charge $600 billion in additional costs to fossil-fuel-using businesses does not.

[John Caruso]

Steve, you seem to prefer your discussions confrontational and sarcastic, even when you're talking to people who should be allies. After this, I'm done with it; it's not worth the stress. Sorry.

[empty]

SteveB
Yes I like the fact that this guy will be tried in criminal court just as I was glad when Padilla was tried in criminal court rather than being held indefinitely in solitary. And given the evidence that I have heard existed before any enhanced interrogation was attempted I would presume that like Padilla this guy will also be convicted. What I was pointing out was that there was not much "change" involved here. This was the same kind of tactical response that the Bush administration used in the Padilla case.

As far as Holder's statement is concerned I would be celebrating a whole lot more if the previous administration had not already been using Bagram as the replacement for Guantanamo. And as I am sure you know the current administration has no intention of giving any rights to a day in court to the prisoners in Bagram. I suppose what I would consider change would be an indication that the US would give due process to all the prisoners it holds. I would be very surprised - and ecstatic - if that happened. To me that would be change.

[SteveB]

I suppose what I would consider change would be an indication that the US would give due process to all the prisoners it holds.

I think you and I agree on the goal, and maybe I'm being too literal here, but when I say "significant change", I really do mean simply "significantly different from the previous policy." So, for example, it's "change" if the U.S. has 50,000 troops in Iraq rather than 150,000 troops in Iraq. Does this mean I'm happy with 50,000 troops in Iraq? No, of course not. But I don't think I can maintain that it isn't change, either. It seems to me that "Obama isn't producing significant change" is the 2008 equivalent of "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties." It's a rhetorical dead end, because all a loyal Dem has to do to disprove your point is to point out some change, or some difference.

John:
I suppose you're right that I'm "confrontational", since I'm more likely to post in response to something I disagree with, mostly because I think that discussions between people who disagree are, generally speaking, more interesting than discussions between people who don't disagree about anything. But obviously I can't make you respond to what I'm saying. I hope you don't mind if I continue to read your blog; sometimes I find useful information here. I may even comment from time to time, on the off chance that one of your readers doesn't mind talking to a sarcastic, confrontational old cuss like me.

[John Caruso]

Steve: Why pretend that "confrontational" and "sarcastic" just mean "in disagreement"? That's just the kind of thing that's finally worn me out. I have no problem with disagreement at all, but belligerence is another thing entirely, and I honestly don't understand why someone who so often talks about movement-building also thinks it's a good idea to attack people on his own side. I'm just not willing to try keeping the peace in a discussion with you anymore when you're pouring on the scorn.

Of course you're welcome to read, and I'll even be happy to discuss things with you—whether or not we agree—if you'll set aside the polarizing approach.

[John Caruso]

empty: My own feeling is that although I'd certainly welcome the U.S. giving due process to all the prisoners it holds, I wouldn't consider it significant change in the terms I laid out in the original posting; it'd basically just be a return to the Clinton years when people like Omar Abdel-Rahman were tried in U.S. courts. If Obama just becomes Clinton II (or Carter II or Kennedy II) that's not what I'd personally consider a meaningful change, as welcome as some of the minor mainstream-acceptable policy adjustments might be.

It's actually funny how far out on a hypothetical limb we are just talking about due process for all U.S. prisoners, though, since Obama has already said clearly that he's not going to do that (and has also indicated he's going to keep kidnapping people to put them in places like Bagram where they'll have no rights). So far it looks like he's going to fall somewhere between Clinton and Bush.

[empty]

It's actually funny how far out on a hypothetical limb we are just talking about due process for all U.S. prisoners

That is depressing isn't it.

[empty]

SteveB:

I don't think we disagree on the goals. Our disagreement, which I suppose one can classify as semantic, is what we mean by change. Bush policies had a certain trajectory and unless Obama deviates from that trajectory I don't see how that is change. Remember that the original Bush plan was to draw down to 30K-40K of US troops once Iraq was "stabilized." So when Obama announces a troop drawdown to that level under conditions that match the conditions that Bush had put forward I cannot see that as change. A de-militarization of US policy would be change, but there is absolutely no evidence that Obama will move in that direction.

Even though I do not think of Obama as a transformational leader and in terms of foreign policy I don't see much of a change at all I do recognize that his election will have a positive impact in a number of ways. Which I think is what you are trying to say. Reversing the health care conscience clause will have an impact on someone's life and is therefore consequential. And I am sure there are a ton of other such initiatives. So there is more than a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Bush. Just not in what we are talking about here.

[SteveB]

Our disagreement, which I suppose one can classify as semantic, is what we mean by change.

Exactly. If you and John had begun this discussion with "Obama doesn't represent fundamental change," I would have been in complete agreement with you, because what happened on November 4 was an election, and not a revolution, and an election between two parties that basically represent the interests of our ruling class. I think there is always going to be confusion if you're defining a commonly-used word like "change" in a way that is different from the definition that most people understand (i.e. "change = fundamentally challenging our capitalist-imperialist system.")

Yes, there are many Obama supporters who believe that he represents fundamental change. But these people are just being silly. And most Obama supporters don't want anything approaching fundamental change, and would be happy with a return to the Clinton era (which would represent change, and even positive change, in my opinion, but it wouldn't be satisfactory change, in my opinion.)

John:
I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but could you give me an example from this thread where I've been scornful or sarcastic? I'd really like to know what I'm saying that's pushing your buttons - it might even help me learn how to better interact with people in the offline world. - Thanks

[John Caruso]

If you and John had begun this discussion with "Obama doesn't represent fundamental change,"...

Actually I called it "genuine, meaningful change," "real change," and "change...safely within the context of U.S. economic, domestic, and foreign policy as they've existed for decades." And I make it a regular habit of prefixing some modifier to "change" to indicate that I don't think tactical policy variations that fall within the narrow framework of decades-old U.S. behavior represent genuine change. If you ever do see me omit that, you can take it as read.

I'd really like to know what I'm saying that's pushing your buttons...

I'd responded here, but I've moved it to email where it belongs. The only part I'll keep: I really appreciate your contributions here, I think you make excellent points, and you always make your case well (even when I disagree with you). And I apologize if it feels like I'm beating on you, and I hope we can have some civil disagreements in the future.

[SteveB]

John:
Thanks for the clarification. Just so you know, when I used the phrase "room to maneuver", I was referring to the room that those in power have, while still remaining "safely within the context of U.S. economic, domestic, and foreign policy as they've existed for decades." A complete withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, would fall within the boundaries you've specified, since the U.S. hasn't had troops in Iraq or Afghanistan for a large majority of the past sixty years (a complete withdrawal from Germany or Japan or South Korea, on the other hand, would not.)

I think Chomsky has made this same point, in the context of arguing for "lesser of two evils" voting in Presidential elections. Even within the ruling-class consensus that governs our two parties, there's still enormous "room to maneuver." I was just arguing that there are lots of moves Obama could make that you and I would probably applaud, that would still keep him well within the "narrow framework of decades-old U.S. behavior."

[John Caruso]

Actually to me a complete withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan would be a major departure from the past; while it's true that it would result in a situation like 1990 (or maybe 1979), having the U.S. completely abandon aggressive war in those cases would represent a huge break with standard U.S. behavior, and I'd definitely accept that as a significant change if Obama would do it. Of course we both know how much chance there is of that....

I get your overall point, though, and I agree that small procedural or tactical changes in U.S. policy can potentially have a big effect on many people's lives. You're right that Chomsky cites that as the reason for lesser evil voting, but that's one area where I disagree completely with him. In my opinion, we need real, deep changes in the way we run our society if we're not going to destroy the world, render it unlivable, or (in the best possible scenario) subject billions to continuing misery. And the Democrats are the biggest impediment to that kind of change—as Clinton demonstrated, and as Obama is already demonstrating.

That's just why I find such hope in Latin America: because people there have won huge victories (at enormous cost) over the regressive forces arrayed against them (e.g. us), and are now working toward making meaningful changes in the way they organize their societies. It's beautiful and it's hopeful, and it's something for us to aspire to.

[Duncan]

You're right that Chomsky cites that as the reason for lesser evil voting, but that's one area where I disagree completely with him. In my opinion, we need real, deep changes in the way we run our society if we're not going to destroy the world, render it unlivable, or (in the best possible scenario) subject billions to continuing misery.

Except that, as I know you know, Chomsky doesn't believe that 'lesser evil voting' produces sufficient change in itself. He does believe that it can make a difference, but he also endorses and encourages activism outside the ballot box to produce deeper change -- which is where most of the Democratic lesser-evilers I know part company. So I don't see where you disagree with him.

[John Caruso]

Just where I said: lesser-evil voting. The broader answer is in that sentence you left out: "the Democrats are the biggest impediment to that kind of change." Unlike Chomsky, I feel it's deeply misguided (and self-defeating) to support the Democrats at all—even if it's just a narrow tactical maneuver.

I just (re-)watched a speech Peter Camejo gave in 2006; he always made the anti-lesser-evil case better than anyone else, and never more so than in that speech. God, I miss him.

[Gnome Chomsky]

I thought I remembered something like this. Does that make you reassess whether something similar from Obama would represent meaningful change?

(I'm honestly not asking that in a "gotcha!" way, to be clear. I'm just seriously wondering if I missed something.)

[John Caruso]

Yeah, I recalled that (in outline) and was going to look up the details when I wrote this posting, but I skipped it. The Washington Post was much less gushy, calling it a "near-apology"—which is how I recalled it, since Clinton only copped to "support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression" (as though the U.S. played a minor support role rather than having initiated the entire conflict with the CIA-led overthrow of Arbenz). And he had little choice but to say something, since the Historical Clarification Commission had just recently issued their report on the Guatemalan genocide. Also, all this was happening as Clinton was ramping up support for similarly horrendous atrocities in Colombia—which shows how much he actually felt their pain.

So I classify it with Clinton's shameless lie-apology to Rwandans in 1998, though in my opinion that's worse.

But yeah, you're right that a mere apology isn't necessarily a meaningful change on its own. I actually had "sincere" in front of "apologies" in the original posting to differentiate what I was talking about from Clinton-style dissembling, but took it out. What I wrote instead was "like those Colom offered", which was meant to convey the same notion but definitely isn't as clear.