US Military Base in Colombia? I Don't Like It, Says Lula of Brazil

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Brazzil Magazine

US Military Base in Colombia? I Don't Like It, Says Lula of Brazil
Written by Newsroom
Wednesday, 05 August 2009

US plans to increase the number of troops in Colombia is drawing opposition, not just from left-wing populist leaders in the region but also from moderate governments like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva prompting Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to tour the region to try to ease concerns.

Colombia, Washington's main ally in the region, says the deal with Washington is aimed at strengthening anti-drug efforts.

The United States is in talks with Uribe's government about relocating US drug interdiction flight operations to Colombia after being kicked out of neighboring Ecuador. Colombia expects to sign a deal this month after a final round of talks in Washington.

~snip~
I don't like the idea of a US base in the region," said Brazilian President Lula da Silva.

Uribe will meet with Lula, Chile's Michelle Bachelet and other South American leaders starting on Tuesday.

Bachelet called the Colombia-US talks "disquieting" and said the proposal should be discussed at the August 10 meeting of the South American Unasur group of nations.


Read more: http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/11051/

[EFerrari]

1. I'm glad Lula is stepping up. He and Obama hit it off.

Maybe Lula can make a difference.

[Vidar]

2. Bravo Lula! Time to give up our imperialism.

[Pavulon]

3. I dont like the watery stuff on my yogurt..

but it will always be there.. Unless he feels we are invading brazil he is just playing to his base.

[Judi Lynn]

4. He's had lots of things to say. You should have been paying attention.

He doesn't need to play to a base. He's deeply popular, highly successful.

[Pavulon]

5. Brazil, yep. Travel there lots..

strong economy. However there is no us base there. The US does big business there. He is talking for the sake of talking, he knows there will be no alteration in the actions of US policy.

[Judi Lynn]

7. Lula has made numerous references to the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet.

Here's a reference to it in comments by a Petrobras official, who covers some of the same concerns voiced by Lula last year:

~snip~
Fernando Siqueira, head of communications at the Petrobras Engineers' Association (AEPET), estimates that 20 trillion dollars are at stake, given that gigantic reserves of "more than 100 billion barrels of oil" are lying under sand, rock and salt layers about 250 kilometres offshore.

That estimate is based on a market price of 200 dollars a barrel of crude, a price that may rise even higher in the next few decades as the world faces the third global "oil shock," or period when demand grows faster than supply, as it did in the 1970s, Siqueira told IPS.

Brazilian oil deposits in what is known as the "pre-salt" area, below a two-kilometre- thick salt layer under rock, sand and deep water, are equivalent to "a new Iraq" in Latin America, partly because of the volume of predicted crude reserves, and partly because of the U.S. "desperation" to get its hands on these resources, he said.

The U.S. has only 29 billion barrels of its own oil reserves, sufficient for no more than three years at the present rate of consumption, according to the engineer.

But arguing about whether a separate state oil company should be created is to "divert the discussion" from the key issue, which is to establish these reserves as the heritage of the Brazilian people and "modify the regulatory framework" to raise the state's share of oil revenues to 84 percent, which is the norm in other countries, Siqueira said.

Such a change could be achieved very simply, by a decree, as the state’s share of oil earnings was capped at a maximum of 40 percent by a 1998 decree during the administration of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2003), he said.

Increasing the government's share would incur little resistance from the foreign oil companies already working as Petrobras partners in oilfields in Brazil. In fact, Siqueira said, "they have proposed the 80 percent figure themselves."

Introducing new regulations would solve the dilemma, since if Brazil's state oil company were the production operator, the state's share would amount to 90 percent, he emphasised.

Thus, Petrobras' private sector partners holding a minority stake would have a limited share in the profits, whether they were contracted for extraction work in newly discovered or in already explored oilfields.

However, there will be a great deal of pressure from the U.S. government, "which wants oil that is cheap, rather than paying the market price," a condition which infringes "Brazilian sovereignty over its reserves" of non-renewable resources, according to Siqueira.

In Siqueira's view, the July 2008 reactivation of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in the South Atlantic is connected with Brazilian "pre-salt" oil.

The government of leftwing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva wants the oil profits to be used directly to benefit the population. Its stated priorities are education, fighting poverty and social security, said the analyst.

More:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43677

[Pavulon]

13. That's his job..

to bitch about his customers. NO one is taking their oil. Hopefully the demand for oil will reach a point where their reserves are not worth jack shit. Lots of really poor people in Brazil too.

[robinlynne]

22. Whydo you call US military a "customer"?

[robinlynne]

12. unless he feels"? Honey brazil was ruld by a military dictatorship for yerars, directly

sponsored by the US. The torturers were trained here in the US. The money was American. feelings? nope. It has happened to almost every Latin American country.

[Pavulon]

14. Pawns in a bigger game..

they played a part in the communist vs western game and we flipped governments there. During that process both sides backed bad guys. Part of the cold war history.

[robinlynne]

16. what on earth? bad guys? The legitimately elected president? bad guys?

are you insane? I hope you're just talking without thinking. Otherwise it is extremely offensive. Those bad guys are close friends of mine, as are their children. People went into the streets and risked their lives to get the "bad guys" back. WHat is bad about them? The "game" was American imperialsim vs. self-determination and democracy. the Soviet Union had NOTHING to do with it. at all. And it was not a game. Not at all. There are hundreds of books written about it. My husband was one of the exiles. And lucky to be alive. Just apologize and say you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

[Pavulon]

18. "legacy of ashes" and the LOC

are great places to start. The US actively interfered with communist states and those that showed alignment towards cuba, even states we thought were communist got flipped. I assume you are misreading my statement on past events and applying them to recent stuff like ecuador and venezuela where the US has no part...

It was a game to those who made the call, not to those who lived there.

[robinlynne]

19. There was NOTHING communist about those states. They were democracies.

[robinlynne]

20. They were nationalists, that's all. This was between the greed of American corporations

and the will of nations and people in South America. not about communism or the cold war. These are countries whose leaders decided to keep their oil, example. During the dictatorship, all Brazilian oil was sent to the United States, refined in the US, then sold back to Brazil as gasoline. Not no more. That aint communism. It is quite capitalist, a little less greedy than our country, but still capitalism.
As a matter of fact, several of the presidents you are calling "communist" supported the fascists during the second world war. they only became US allies because we bought them with money.
populist yes
nationalist yes
communist no.

[robinlynne]

21. What I find offensive is your saying bad guys on both sides. The people elected

governments which were serving their people more than they were serving the chiquita banana company. How does that make them bad guys? It was period of prosperity, innovation, Brasilia was built. then troops, all financed and prepared by the US, death, torture, exile. I personally know people covered with torture marks, who were young college students who committed the crime of talking to each other about the world. how are they "bad guys"? What the hell did they do wrong?

[Zorro]

6. I don't like Brazil chopping down the Amazonian rain forest

Lula has the authority to do something about that.

[Blue_Tires]

11. +1

[Guero]

8. Anyone who thought Obama would substantively change

US foreign policy should be eating crow right now. now that our imperial adventure in Iraq is winding down (it ain't over 'til the fat general sings) the Pentagon is refocusing on Latin America.

The establishment of US military 'bases' to support the narco-government of Uribe and project US military power in the region - and on Venzuela's portal - is a serious threat to peace and democracy in the region.

We've already seen how this administration is willing to allow the oligarchy in a Central American country - that has US military bases and receives significant military assistance - revert to the old ways of suppressing constitutional government.

How long before the US is again destabilizing elected govenments in Latin America and paving the way for a return to savage military rule. AND THIS IS BEGINNING UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!

[sabrina 1]

9. I'm afraid you are right. George Bush failed

in S. America being as busy as he was in the ME. That probably was the one good thing about his eight, disastrous years in office. It gave S. American countries a chance to become independent democracies.

I really, really hope Democrats are not going to work against the rise of democracy in S.A. and the long needed overthrow of cruel dictatorships which no person of conscience could condone.

[anonymous171]

10. Why do we need a base there? Why not just cooperate with local law enforcement?

The drug war is just an excuse for imperialism.

[EFerrari]

15. Not one base. Seven new bases is what they want. n/t

[New Dawn]

17. K&R - No US occupation of Latin America!