|
with this negotiation by the rightwing president of Colombia, Uribe, who has been the beneficiary of billions of dollars in military aid from the Bush Junta (our taxpayer dollars), has had some trouble distancing himself from the rightwing military death squads operating in Colombia, with very close ties to his government (the head of the military, the former chief of intelligence--a close Uribe bud--and many Uribe office holders). One of their nefarious activities was a plot to assassinate Chavez. But Uribe and Chavez have since become friends, of sort. (They couldn't be further apart on social justice policy, and U.S./South American relations). What could the common ground be? It's a possibility that Chavez's, and Venezuela's, strong moves toward self-determination and independence (especially from the U.S.) has emboldened even the few remaining rightwing leaders on the continent, with cultural pride ("Latin America for the Latin Americans"). ("Why should the Gringos run everything, hey, Alvaro?"). I saw evidence of this during Bush's trip to Latin America last March, when he was publicly lectured by various presidents, from Brazil to Mexico, about Latin American SOVEREIGNTY. The rightwing president of Mexico, Calderon, even mentioned Venezuela as a example!
I was astonished. And kind of amazed that our corporate news monopolies didn't pick up on it. The crap they do (and don't do) usually doesn't surprise me. (They are so-o-o bad!) But even though they routinely protect our Idiot in Chief, their journalists can get their blood up when there is conflict like this (and there was one AP reporter sniffing around this story). I think it had to do with the Colombian plot to kill Chavez, and direct Bushite (and DLC Democrat) involvement in a scheme to destabilize Venezuela last December, during the presidential election. Penn & Schoen (H. Clinton's PR firm) put out a false poll saying Chavez had lost. (He won with 63% of the vote, in highly monitored, transparent elections.) This was supposed to trigger staged "riots" by the rightwing minority, followed by another rightwing military coup attempt. The opposition candidate publicly disavowed this plot (possibly because it had been exposed, and feeling in South America was very much against it). In any case, it failed.
Other indications of "something" going on among Latin American leaders (to do with Bush and Chavez): The U.S. directive to South American leaders was that they must "isolate" Chavez and Venezuela. When Nestor Kirchner (Argentina) was asked about this, he replied, "But he is my brother!" Lula da Silva (Brazil) made a point of doing a state visit to Venezuela, two weeks before the Venezuelan election, for the opening of the Orinoco Bridge (an implied endorsement of Chavez). And Rafael Correa (Ecuador), who was campaigning for president around the same time, when he was asked about Chavez's remark to the UN that Bush was "the Devil," replied that it was "an insult to the devil." Correa had been running neck and neck with a rightwing banana magnate. His numbers suddenly soared, and he won the election with 60% of the vote. (--don't know if it had all to do with Chavez, but the timing was certainly interesting).
Also, after the fiasco of the Bushites strong-arming South American countries, to keep Venezuela off the UN Security Council (they succeeded, but left many bruises), the OAS voted Venezuela onto its Human Rights Commission, and Mercosur (very recently) voted Venezuela in as a full member.
Most interesting of all, though, were Calderon's remarks to Bush (--a startling rebuke, it seemed to me, coming from Calderon), and this overture of Uribe's to Chavez (to negotiate the hostage release). If South Americans can solve their own problems--can end the leftist guerrilla insurgency in Colombia, for instance--then what do they need the U.S. for, with the interference and bullying that attends its billions in military aid? Well, Calderon and Uribe are both hungry for more of those billions--it enhances their power, and provides them with the means to crush peaceful dissent. I don't have any illusions about these fascists. And who knows how insincere they might be, as to Bush/CIA plots against Chavez? Hard to say.
Still, I feel a rumble, and its name in "Latin American self-determination." It is perhaps BECAUSE OF Chavez that Calderon is negotiating Mexican control over "war on drugs" military aid, and no U.S. presence on Mexican soil. And the U.S. military--and perhaps more specifically, Bush Cartel Blackwater mercenaries--could be a danger to any Latin American leader. The Bushites are really, REALLY dirty players. They would bully, blackmail and turn on anybody. And it sure looks to me like Latin American leaders, left and right, achieved some sort of consensus at least about overt U.S. interference.
The rightwing leaders also have the motive of being outnumbered. Their day is over in Latin America. The trend is overwhelmingly toward the left. And they had best make peace with it, at least for economic advantage (such as membership in the Bank of the South, started by Venezuela, and in regional trade groups).
I don't know if I've put all the pieces together--and connected all the dots--but I DO feel, as a result of the above, that: a) Bush Junta assassination of leaders like Chavez, Morales and Correa is much less of a danger than it was about a year ago; and b) U.S.-based and other global corporate predators (and the "war on drugs" boondoggle) have a serious problem in South America, that they can't address by traditional means. They've tried everything, in their efforts to get rid of Chavez, and stop the Bolivarian Revolution, and nothing has worked.
And this is all to the good.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
