|
Here's my take on it. On Dec 1, 2007, Donald Rumsfeld wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he said that Chavez's efforts to get FARC hostages released were "not welcome in Colombia." They had been the week before. The Bushwhack tool in Colombia, President of the Well Off, Alvaro Uribe, had asked Chavez to negotiate with the FARC for hostage releases; Chavez had proceeded to do so; several hostages were supposed to be released to Chavez that weekend (12/1/07); the Colombian military bombed the hostages' location, as they were in route to their freedom, sending them on a 20 mile hike back into the jungle, to safety (in captivity). Not coincidentally, Uribe publicly withdrew his request of Chavez just before Rumsfeld's op-ed. Clearly Rumsfeld--retired from slaughtering Iraqis for their oil--was working on Oil War II-South America, and Uribe was either caught in the middle, or complicit. (I favor complicit, given subsequent events.)
The hostages' families, human rights groups, and numerous world leaders (for instance, the president of France--hostage Betancourt is a French-Colombian dual citizen and former Colombian presidential candidate) begged Chavez not to give up. The FARC figured out how to get hostages to him, and the Chavez negotiations resulted in a total of six hostages released during the Dec 07-Feb 08 period. The project was a success, and bode well for a peaceful end to the 40+ year Colombian civil war. This, of course, was not what Rumsfeld had wanted. He had hoped to hand Chavez a diplomatic disaster, with dead hostages.
Plan B for starting Oil War II was to kill the peace-minded FARC guerrilla commander, Raul Reyes, and end the Chavez diplomatic success and all hopes for peace, with a bombing/raid on Reyes' temporary camp, just inside Ecuador's border, set up by Reyes as a safe haven from which to release Betancourt and others (likely because of the perils of releasing hostages across the northern Colombia/Venezuela border). French, Spanish and Swiss envoys flew to Ecuador to receive Betancourt from the FARC, notified the Colombian government of their intention, and were on route to Reyes' camp when they were warned that it was going to be bombed and everybody killed. That is what happened on March 1, 2008. The news story is that Colombia, using US high tech surveillance (Reyes' alleged use of a satellite phone), pinpointed his position, bombed the site (using 5 to 10 US "smart bombs"), then sent Colombian troops across the border to shoot any survivors. 25 people--including Reyes, several Mexican students (apparently visiting to participate in the humanitarian mission), and at least one Ecuadoran citizen (but no hostages) were slaughtered. The Ecuadoran military reported finding bodies in their pajamas shot in the back. They had all been asleep. (Later, the US role became clearer--the whole thing was very likely orchestrated from the US embassy 'war room' in Bogota, and US planes from the Manta, Ecuador, US "war on drugs" air base were more than likely used to drop the bombs. How they pinpointed Reyes' location is still unclear, since it is very unlikely, indeed, that Reyes, a top guerrilla commander with some twenty years experience, would use a satellite phone and remain at that location.
This slaughter was perpetrated without the knowledge or permission of the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. He broke off diplomatic relations with Colombia, and sent military battalions to reinforce his borders. Chavez did the same--reinforcing Venezuela's northern border with Colombia. The region was poised for war.
There ensued a diplomatic brouhaha, with meetings of the Rio Group (an all-Latin American--no US--conflict resolution group, precursor to the Union of South American Nations, UNASUR--the new South American "Common Market," formalized later in the year), and the OAS. Colombia was unanimously condemned by the Rio Group, and also by the OAS, but with the US abstaining. Colombia admitted wrongfully violating Ecuador's territory and promised never to do it again. Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, called Chavez "the great peacemaker," for his role in preventing a war. (Rafael Correa had only been in office for a year. He was furious at Colombia. Chavez, a more experienced hand, saw a war trap, and pulled them both back from it. That's how I read it.)
But this was not the end of the incident. Uribe began leaking alleged emails from a laptop computer (later computerS) that he claimed Colombia had seized from the bombed out Reyes camp, and making wild claims, for instance, that Chavez was helping the FARC obtain a dirty bomb, and that Chavez and Correa were either giving money to the FARC or taking money from them (were "terrorist lovers," in other words). It has now been established, fairly certainly, that there were no email files in these "miracle laptops" (another oddity--would an experienced guerrilla commander send highly sensitive messages via email?). The whole thing began to stink to high heaven.
Another player in these unfolding events was Defense Minister Santos of Colombia, who possibly has ambitions for a military dictatorship of Colombia, and may consider Uribe (who has maintained a very thin veil of democracy in Colombia) as a rival. Is he the one, working with Rumsfeld, who set Chavez up and tried to kill the first group of hostages that Chavez got released? Is he the one who is conspiring with the fascist elements in Venezuela's oil-rich northern province of Zulia, on a secession scheme (a civil war), for regaining global corporate predator (Exxon Mobil et al) control of Venezuela's oil? Interestingly, Uribe, who clearly acted as a Bushwhack tool--for instance, by inviting Chavez to negotiate with the FARC, and in the "miracle laptop" psyops campaign--several months later visited Chavez, and held a press conference with him, full of brotherly love and forgiveness, at which they announced cooperative projects (such as a new railroad linking their countries). Santos publicly criticized this meeting, and then went to Washington seeking more military aid for Colombia (--already the recipient of $6 BILLION in military aid from the Bushwhacks).
Then came the high profile, dashing, 007-style 'rescue' of Ingrid Betancourt from the FARC guerrillas, splashed all over the corpo/fascist 'news' media--with news reports inadvertently (I think) revealing the "war room" setup at the US embassy in Colombia. (The US ambassador, and Colombian officials, watched the whole 'rescue' in a live video feed from the field, inside the embassy.)
Central also to these events is the Bushwhacks' promotion of the US "free trade" deal with Colombia, which has been stalled in Congress by labor Democrats who object to the slaughter of thousands of union leaders in Colombia, by rightwing death squads with close ties to the government and the military. This was the main focus of Rumsfeld's 12/1/07 op-ed ("The Smart Way to Defeat Tyrants Like Chavez"), although he also urges "swift action" by the US in support of "friends and allies" in South America--probably meaning military support of the planned fascist insurrections in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. (The insurrection--riots and murders--went forward in Bolivia, in September, and was defeated by rather "swift action" by UNASUR, which had only just been formalized, and by Evo Morales' cool head and great popularity in Bolivia.)
Which brings us to the US presidential election. The appointment by Barack Obama of Hillary Clinton as Sec of State, and Eric Holder as Attorney General, and other actions, tell me that Obama wants the Colombia 'free trade' deal. But they have to clean up Colombia's act to get it through Congress. And this is why Ingrid Betancourt's recent travels all over South America, and her visit to Chavez, is so interesting. I think she will be the means for achieving that purpose. Uribe--hit with numerous scandals (most recently, a horrid financial pyramid scheme that bilked thousands of small investors of their money, with apparent involvement by Uribe's sons)--is likely going to fail at his latest effort (in the first, he used bribery) to get Colombia's constitution changed, so he can run for president again. He is tainted in numerous ways--the former go-to guy for the Medellin Cartel, lately the go-to guy for the Bush Cartel; some fifty of his political cohorts, including relatives, under investigation, or in jail, for ties to the death squads, etc.; Bush's pal, probably his cocaine dealer (sorry!). VERY tainted.
Obama said, during the campaign, that he opposed the Colombian "free trade" deal, and held up the Peru "free trade" deal as a model. The Peru "free trade" deal puts labor and environmental protections ON PAPER, but these are NOT being implemented in Peru, where the corrupt government of Alan Garcia has been hit by serious labor and campesino unrest, and has a 20% approval rating (as bad as Bush's). But all our corpo/fascists want is the APPEARANCE of fairness--a way to plunder resources, and exploit workers, that can be "sold" via the corpo/fascist media to a brainwashed public. Obama--whom I think is intelligent and has a good heart--can easily be destroyed by the malevolent global corporate predators who rule over us, and is walking a tightrope (or a plank?) between what most people want and need, and what the corpo/fascists demand: restoration of their looting expeditions in Latin America, which have been severely curtailed by the likes of Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa and Evo Morales, in the great leftist democracy movement that has swept the continent. As the South Americans achieve democracy and sovereign control of their own affairs, there are fewer and fewer plundering grounds left. Colombia is one of them. It is a must-do for any President of the US who wants to survive. And it's my guess that Ingrid Betancourt will be the means. She is being groomed to become president of Colombia.
This could have some very good aspects to it--especially if she manages a peace treaty with the FARC. (I'd bet that that was the substance of her discussions with Chavez.) God knows Colombia needs peace, after 40+ years of death squads, militarization and civil war. The bad aspects would be yet more environmental destruction, and outsourcing of our own jobs to cheap labor markets, in Peru and Colombia, and wherever else Exxon Mobil, Monsanto and brethren gain more foothold in South America, and possibly, weakening of South America's resolve as to self-rule, independence and sovereignty. This could lead to Oil War II later--if it doesn't get triggered in the immediate future (which is still possible). It also has implications in Central America and the Caribbean (where a leftist democracy movement is in progress). To sum up, will Ingrid Betancourt become the "Bill Clinton" of Colombia and South America--the means of re-establishing corporate rule in the region, weakening democracy, and preparing the way for another corporate resource war?
There is a contrary tide--the tide of democracy and independence--that is very strong in South America. The general political context there is quite different from the context here. The South Americans have tasted freedom and self-rule. They have emerged from fascist dictatorship and neoliberal ruin, and won't easily be dominated and exploited again. We have yet to emerge from those conditions. We are, indeed, right now, undergoing the final looting (I hope it is the final looting), and it is doubtful that our new, young "good emperor" will be able to do much about the kind of suffering, here, that countries like Argentina, Bolivia and Venezuela suffered a decade ago, with near total financial destruction by rightwing elites in connivance with the World Bank/IMF and assorted global corporate predators. So, if Betancourt is "the one" (the corporate savior), she will be under great pressure not to go the way of Clintonism, or not as far. She will be operating in a VERY leftist context--amidst leaders who have just formed a South American "Common Market" and are discussing a common currency. Also, she may be more Europe-oriented than US-oriented. (This will at least provide a balance of forces trying to exploit South America.)
One other thing--if she becomes president of Colombia, she will be joining a quite new phenomenon in South America, of women heads of state. Chile's Michele Batchelet and Argentina's Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner have played pivotal roles on matters of peace and sovereignty. They helped prevent two Bushwhack-instigated wars (war between Colombia and Ecuador, and civil war in Bolivia). Batchelet also negotiated access to the sea for Bolivia (an old war, at last resolved). And Fernandez was helping with the FARC hostage negotiations (aimed at a peace treaty in Colombia's civil war). I think they see their role as tempering the 'machismo' that even leftist male leaders sometimes exhibit. Batchelet was tortured during the US-backed Pinochet dictatorship. Fernandez has particular affinity with "the Mothers"--the women who courageously protested the thousands of 'disappeared' during Argentina's dictatorship. Betancourt could have kinship with them, as women, bringing a new perspective to South American politics, that emphasizes cooperation and common purpose, as well as having a steely determination never to let those things happen again. Her experience as a hostage of leftist guerrillas possibly gave her some insight into the futility of armed conflict at solving social justice problems, but also the absolute necessity of finding other ways to solve them. Corporate rule will never do this. It is violent at its core. But it is very difficult to see out of--and beyond--the world of injustice and planetary peril that corporate rule has created.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
