CHRISTIAN televangelist Pat Robertson has created a name for himself in the past two decades with his radical and sometimes offensive viewpoints. His style of snatching the spotlight has not changed, as earlier this week he advocated the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. While many of Robertson's views on domestic issues are simply opinions, his suggestion towards Chavez was not only puerile but ultimately detrimental to United States interests. More worrisome than Pat Robertson is the response given by the State Department to his comments: rather than completely denouncing Robertson's comment, they merely labeled it inappropriate.
Robertson has a long history of controversial remarks that have defined public character. In 1992 at the GOP National Convention, Robertson remarked that "feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." In his November 1993 address to the American Center for Law and Justice, Robertson said, "There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the left and we are not going to take it anymore." Even after the Sept. 11 attacks, Robertson unfortunately had the fortitude to say that "activist" judges were a greater threat to our nation than terrorists.
These are just three examples out of dozens, all of which represent the verbal shock-and-awe campaign Robertson has been running on mainstream America. While these controversial opinions merely reflect Robertson exercising his First Amendment rights, his recent suggestion that we send covert operatives to assassinate Chavez was, at best, irresponsible and will very likely prove to be detrimental to foreign relations.
President Chavez, not a saint by any stretch of the word, has ties with communist Cuba and plans to transform Venezuela into a more socialist nation. Chavez has on many occasions accused the United States of plotting and attempting his assassination. Robertson, responding to these allegations, mentioned quite clearly and seriously that the United States should assassinate Chavez and save itself a costly war.
Robertson's suggestion clashes with Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12333, which states in Part 2 Section 11 that "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."
More grave, however, is that Robertson, as a popular leader of the Christian Coalition, unilaterally spoke for the United States in a manner that would further antagonize South American youth. His words, although not representative of the people at large, are public enough so that Chavez and other South American leaders can point to them in order to vindicate their anti-American, anti-capitalist messages.
Furthermore, in the face of rising oil prices, the United States cannot afford to estrange another oil-producing nation such as Venezuela. Currently, over 10 percent of U.S. oil comes from Venezuela. While it is doubtful that Robertson's comments will single-handedly destroy this trade relationship, it will without a doubt contribute to the deterioration of the U.S.-Venezuelan political relationship, which in turn could cause trade problems down the road.
Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the State Department, merely referred to Robertson's comments as "inappropriate." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied, "Certainly it's against the law. Our department doesn't do that type of thing" and then added that "private citizens say all kinds of things all the time." Bernardo Álvarez, the Venezuelan ambassador to the United States summed it up when he said, "Mr. Robertson has been one of the president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House."
Some may say that Bush need not apologize for the words of a private citizen, but such a mindset completely omits foreign perspective and further agitates America's already shaky global reputation. In saying what he said, many South Americans now see that a close friend of the White House is advocating assassinations of their political leaders.
Without a doubt, they will associate and attach the opinions of Robertson to the White House. In order to assuage this increasing tension with our friends in South America, Bush should issue a harsh reprimand of Robertson's comment, making it clear to South Americans that the United States isn't trying to manipulate their nations. Bush's unwillingness to do so thus far merely reflects the administration's unwillingness to take into consideration the opinions and perspectives of the global community.
Sina Kian's column appears Thursday in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at skian@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
