Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, testified on Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In that testimony, he harkened back to the Reagan era fear mongering of foreign agents agitating among our southern neighbors. The statements made before the committee were out of line and may have been a calculated to move to influence political events in Latin America, where Gates has had a troubled past...
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused Iran Tuesday of engaging in "subversive activity" in Latin America, saying it concerned him more than Russia's recent naval forays in the region.
"I'm concerned about the level of frankly subversive activity that the Iranians are carrying on in a number of places in Latin America particularly South America and Central America," Gates told lawmakers.
"They're opening a lot of offices and a lot of fronts behind which they interfere in what is going on in some of these countries," he said.
First of all, Gates does not give any specific details about the alleged subversive activities of Iran in Latin America and he assumes that the US should influence politics there while other countries stay out. But for some context, let's look at Gates' history in Latin America.
This site has an archive of Gates' confirmation hearings as CIA director in 1987 and 1991:
As Director of Central Intelligence in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, Gates faced criticism for moving slowly with reforming the agency for the new era, and thus missing a moment of extraordinary opportunity that occurred at that time. In earlier posts at top levels of the CIA, Gates figured in the Iran-Contra affair, in which he engaged in sins of omission if not commission, hesitating to make inquiries and pass warnings that might have headed off this abuse of power. As the CIA's top manager for intelligence analysis in the early 1980s he was accused of slanting intelligence to suit the predilections of the Reagan administration and his boss, Director William J. Casey.
Public statements like those made by Gates are irresponsible and serve to set back the development of democracy in Latin America. Following a century of US intervention in Latin American elections, many are still scared of what the US will do if they elect a leader not approved by Washington. During the Bush administrations, simple statements or ambiguous rumors were enough to swing elections. El Salvador's presidential election of 2004 was too close for Bush's comfort, so the US ambassador to that country made statements indicating that a left wing victory in the election would lead to the deportation of salvadorans in the US. He also threatened to block the remittances sent by immigrants to family members in El Salvador. Whole communities rely on this money to survive. Another attempt to use the same threats during Nicaragua's presidential elections of 2006 failed as Daniel Ortega emerged victorious.
This year, US conservatives have their eyes set on the presidential elections in El Salvador - scheduled for March 15. The right wing party is facing almost certain defeat - the first time they would be out of power in the history of their post-war democracy. I have many friends in El Salvador and many there are longing for change, a more transparent government, but many fear the consequences of a change election. Will the right wing peacefully transfer power to the opposition? Many saw the election of Barack Obama as a relief because they believed he would be less likely to intervene in Salvadoran politics. These comments by Gates will undoubtedly be reported prominently in El Salvador's conservative newspapers and will make some hesitate to support the change candidate in March. Salvadorans want change this year, but many can be swayed by the fear of returning to the nightmares of war.