|
Rice (Little Miss Guantanamo Bay) would sit very well with Batchelet, who was tortured by Pinochet and lost family members. Rice went down there to twist her arm. The Bush Junta was desperate to keep Venezuela off the UN Security Council. (Can you just imagine what a show it would have been to have Chavez eye to eye with John "death squad" Bolton!). What I was hoping was that Batchelet used her advantage to the benefit her people and her region. In such an unbalanced power situation--Chile vs. the US--sometimes the best you can do is a wily compromise that has long term benefits.
I was hoping the same thing with Bush's desperate trip to Latin America this week, as His Ugliness tried to stem the overwhelming tide of peaceful, democratic revolution that is sweeping the south. (Didn't King Canute have something to say about that?) I hoped that Lulu (Brazil) and Vasquez (Uruguay), the two targeted for "divide and conquer," would use their advantage well. Bush was desperate to score some points for his Corporate Masters. The plundering of the Middle East has turned out to be a disaster. The American people are in rebellion against it. And the Bushites have meanwhile "lost" South America as an easy place to loot (leftist governments elected in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua--and big leftist movements in Peru, Paraguay and Mexico, which will win future elections). Of course the only thing Bush delivers is killing machines--billions of dollars to Colombia for the US "war on drugs" (war on peasants and leftists), with the chief beneficiaries being rightwing paramilitary drug traffickers and mass murderers. Death and Destruction. That's our name in the world right now.
But what happened is quite remarkable. I heard part of the Bush-Calderon (Mexico) press conference. Calderon, like Lulu in Brazil, took the opportunity to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM BUSH, with remarks about the sovereignty of Latin American countries, mentioning VENEZUELA in particular. Never expected anything like that from Calderon. Expected a schmooze fest. Calderon is not a nice man. He sided with the murderous rightwing paramilitaries in Oaxaca, and sent the federales in to gas the town of Oaxaca, in support of the fascist governor. Neither is Uribe of Colombia a nice man, his government currently rocked with rightwing paramilitary scandals. These are Bush's pals in Latin America. But EVEN THEY feel obliged to at least pay lip service to the concept of "Latin America for Latin Americans." Uribe apparently wouldn't participate in the Bushite plots against Chavez, and has tried to distance himself from the paramilitaries who were plotting to assassinate him.
In Brazil, Lulu invited Chavez in for a big anti-Bush rally, in Bush's wake (as Bush trotted off the Uruguay, to try to exacerbate a small spat in Mercosur--the So. American trade group--Bush's object being to prevent a South American "Common Market" from being developed). I'm not sure where Vasquez (Uruguay) stands in all this, but it was the COMMON THEME of everyone else Bush tried to cozy up to: HANDS OFF LATIN AMERICA! They will not tolerate events such as the US-supported fascist military coup attempt against Chavez in 2002, and all the crap the Bushites have tried since then (millions of dollars in USAID funds poured into Venezuela to defeat Chavez in a recall election--the US in effect sponsoring the recall, in violation of Venezuelan law, and I'm sure even darker deeds than that).
Talk about a SEA CHANGE! This is one of those. This truly is an unstoppable, leftist (majorityist) revolution--so powerful that even the last rightwing leaders left standing MUST support some of its principles: regional self-determination and unity. Lulu (leftist) and Calderon (rightist) BOTH lectured Bush on the sovereignty of Latin American countries!
Furthermore, I am fairly convinced that a CONDITION was laid down for Bush visiting Brazil and Uruguay that he NOT criticize Hugo Chavez. They would not tolerate it! And even a leader like Calderon agreed.
So-o-o, in this context, what are we to make of this rather vague and murky report about Chile's ambassador to Venezuela being recalled, because he publicly stated that he supported Venezuela's bid for the UN Security Council seat. What are the "series of circumstances" that "happened," that caused Chile to abstain--when its new socialist president, Batchelet--the first woman elected to that post--and someone who had suffered torture by a US-backed dictator, wanted to support Venezuela?
On the surface, it appears to be an internal Chilean political matter: "Batchelet at first wanted to support Venezuela over Guatemala in the October election for a seat on the Security Council but later was influenced by a debate within the governing coalition."
But the Chilean Foreign Minister says something more: "Foxley declined to confirm that the ambassador to Venezuela would be fired, but said, 'We think that what has happened is a very delicate, a very serious, grave situation.'"
Why would this be a "very delicate, a very serious, grave situation"? Grave? That's a strong word. And "very delicate." What does he mean? I'm thinking: Batchelet was put upon by some faction in her governing coalition to make this concession to the US (abstain on the UN Security Council vote, rather than vote for Venezuela) in exchange for something, and part of the deal, with the US, was that Chile would shut up about it--about the vote and/or the deal--and/or would decline to openly support Chavez/Venezuela in its efforts to fend off Bush/US interference. Bear in mind that the entire Andean region is at issue. The Global Corporate Predators who control Bush have their greedy eyes on the oil, gas, minerals and other rich natural resources of Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela--all with leftist governments--and of Peru and Paraguay (likely future leftist governments). Chavez is trying to unite the region--and has been very successful so far in those efforts. Bush and the Global Corporate Predators, of course, want to divide them and topple the leftist democracies, and prevent any others. This is not just Chavez vs. the US. This is much bigger.
So Batchelet--at the behest of whatever internal political factions (perhaps with particular economic interests)--making some sort of deal with the US/Bush (fascists, death squadders, the malevolent ones) would be a very un-South American thing to do. And she would have done it PRIOR to all this current unity against US interference, at a time when things were a little dicier. Chavez had not yet triumphed in the 2006 election (winning 63% of the vote). Rafael Correa had not yet triumphed in the Ecuadoran election (60%). (Both were boosted by Chavez's "devil" remark at the UN--Correa agreed with it, said it "was an insult to the devil.") In fact, at the time that Batchelet would have made such a deal, things were touch and go as to the Bolivarian revolution. The Bolivarian in Peru (Ollanta Humala) lost to a very corrupt leftist/corporatist (--although a correct reading of that election was quite positive for the long term leftist prospects). The Bushites were apparently plotting with the Colombian paramilitaries to assassinate Chavez, and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies were vilifying Chavez to an outrageous degree--even for them. He was the new "Saddam." Batchelet--who, of course, has to see to the interests of her own people--may have misread the political winds, and compromised with the Bushites unnecessarily.
And that would account for words like "grave" and "very delicate." Of course, it's not okay for an ambassador (Chile's ambassador) to publicly oppose or gainsay a decision of his president. That just isn't done in diplomatic circles. But I can see his temptation. He was right, dammit! And, in the current, more Chavez-friendly, Chavez-unified atmosphere among Latin American leaders, he wants that to be known, and perhaps for more than personal reasons. He wants Chile to get with it, to be part of the vast sea change in Latin American politics. He's been in Venezuela, and he can SEE the positive boon of Bolivarianism, for the poor and for the majority, and ALSO for the REGION. The Venezuelan policy of creating a loan fund--easy term loans--to get its neighbors out of World Bank/IMF debt (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador)--is extremely beneficial. And the notion of a South American "Common Market" (and common currency) would free the continent of US Corporate domination. He doesn't want Chile to be on the wrong side of these positive developments. He doesn't want Chile to be neutral about them--or to give in to US/Bush arm-twisting.
That's the best construction one could put on his statement. But is it the truth? I'm not sure. We have to keep in mind that billions and billions of dollars are at stake--in the exploitation of resources and people, by Global Corporate Predators. Is he sincere? Or does he have other, not so good motives that we can't see?
I don't know much about Batchelet's politics. She is a socialist. And to have a Pinochet torture victim elected president of Chile was certainly a wonderful thing. I applauded it. What a perfectly beautiful development. And I noticed she resisted the fascists' recent attempts to rehabilitate Pinochet. (She refused to give Pinochet a state funeral, and of course declined to attend the private funeral that he was given.) Her own seering experience at the hands of that US-backed torturer and mass murderer has made her who she is. But you can't take on political responsibility--responsibility for the welfare of millions--and let your personal revulsions dominate policy. She saw some advantage for Chile in Bush's desperation to keep Venezuela off the UN Security Council, and got something in return, I expect. And that is the "very delicate" and "grave" matter that this ambassador's outspokenness puts at risk.
I hope Batchelet survives it. I hope this isn't used to "divide and conquer." I'm a little suspicious because the ambassador is a Christian Democrat. He (Claudio Huepe) personally supported Venezuela's bid for the UN Security Council seat--so he says--but his party opposed it. And for Batchelet to suffer politically would be a victory for that horrible conniver, Condi Rice. Could Huepe be in league with them to embarrass Batchelet, and topple the socialists? Or, if not a nefarious scheme, could he just be an opportunist, promoting his own political fortunes? I don't know anything about him, except what is in this article. (And, by the way, I'm not altogether sure we can trust this source--mercopress. I can't figure out who is behind them.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
