|
Last year, the Bushwhacks tried to start a war between Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela. Chavez played a critical role in stopping that war. President Lula da Silva called him "the great peacemaker," because of it.
It became clear from that incident--and a later series of incidents regarding FARC hostage negotiations--that the Bushwhacks were calling the shots in the Colombian military, quite literally, from a "war room" in the U.S. embassy in Bogota, with extremely treacherous and evil purposes.
The situation in Colombia is VERY bad, with an out-of-control military, funded by $6 BILLION in U.S./Bushwhack military aide, and closely tied rightwing paramilitary death squads, who, together (about half and half) have slaughtered thousands of union leaders, small peasant farmers, political leftists, community organizers, human rights workers, journalists and others--anyone who opposes the current regime--a reign of rightwing terror. Colombia's democracy is extremely tenuous. You can't really have a democracy amidst a "reign of terror" like this. Uribe and many of his cohorts have ties to the death squads and to narco/weapons trafficking. But Defense Minister Santos is worse than Uribe, if they is imaginable. Santos is an incipient Hitler, with not the slightest interest in maintaining even the appearance of democracy. It is within his military that assassination plots against Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, have been discovered. President Uribe had to apologize to Chavez about this, in a four hour meeting, about a year and a half ago.
One of the things the Bushwhacks did was to manufacture evidence in an alleged FARC laptop computer that Chavez was supporting the FARC guerrillas (leftist guerrillas, who have been fighting the fascist regime in Colombia for more than forty years). Uribe trumpeted this phony evidence--an excruciatingly treacherous act against Chavez, since it was Uribe himself who asked Chavez to negotiate with the FARC for the release of hostages, which Chavez went ahead and did. Chavez got six hostages released in Dec '07/Feb '08. But the Colombian military fired rockets at the first two hostages' location, as they were in route to their freedom, driving them back on a 20-mile hike into the jungle. In other words, it appears that either Uribe set Chavez up--trying to hand him a diplomatic disaster, with dead hostages--or the Colombian military tried to sabotage the hostage release, behind Uribe's back. Uribe's behavior during this period was especially erratic and strange. He asked Chavez to get hostages released, then, a couple of days before the first two were to be released, suddenly rescinded that request. In the same week, Donald Rumsfeld published an op-ed in the Washington Post--Dec '07--stating that Chavez's help with hostages releases was "not welcome" in Colombia. Uribe's strings were being pulled in Washington, this way and that, in a very odd dance. (Note: Chavez managed to get those two hostages out, by a different route, and four more a bit later.)
Now, consider the concern not just of Chavez--a democratically elected, leftist president, in an eminently and provably democratic country--and the other leaders throughout South America, virtually all of whom are also leftists and democrats, and strong allies of Chavez, about this fascist dinosaur, Colombia, with $6 BILLION in U.S./Bushwhack funding. This is a very dangerous situation, as the bombing/raid on Ecuador established. All hell broke loose in South America when the U.S./Colombia bombed and raided in Ecuador's territory, and Colombia was condemned by all.
But ever since these events, there has been considerable evidence that South American leaders, including Chavez, and also Lula Da Silva (Brazil) and Michele Batchelet (Chile) and others, are working very hard to pull Colombia into the orbit of their new 'common market'--UNASUR--and to strengthen the civilian government in Colombia over and against the Colombian military. Santos has tried to undermine these efforts. For instance, when Uribe visited Chavez, last year, for a "burying the hatchet" meeting (at which they first announced joint economic ventures, such as a railroad between their countries), Santos publicly ridiculed the meeting. He is a supposed employee of Uribe, yet dared to do this--tried to undermine civilian policy. He wants to run Colombia, and, if he did, there wouldn't be even highly non-transparent elections, with leftists terrorized by death squads. There would be no elections at all. It would be an outright junta.
Uribe may be corrupt (very), with ties to death squads (regime propped up by them), and ties to narco-trafficking, but, under his regime, the legislature meets (thought leftist legislators have to wear bulletproof vests), and courts and prosecutors investigate and sometimes convict and jail Uribe cronies (though the judges and prosecutors endure death threats as well). This barely functioning democracy is necessary to "sell" Colombia to the "free tradist" politicians in the U.S.--but it is also a bar to what Santos would do--nix elections altogether, rule by decree and probably invade Venezuela and hand its oil states over to Exxon Mobil (with Donald Rumsfeld's and Blackwater's help, I'm sure).
Although Chavez uses stern rhetoric and ridicule against Bushwhacks, he is actually a jolly, friendly fellow, well-liked among the leaders of South America, who is excellent at overcoming hostility and negotiating peace. He has done it time and again. (As to other leaders liking him, you really have to see the video of Chavez and the new leftist president of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo--a former bishop--doing their rendition of the popular song, "Todo cambio"--"Everything changes"--at Lugo's inauguration party; or watch Chavez maneuvering at the Rio Group, between Uribe and Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, over the bombing incident, with Chavez smiling, laughing, joking and back-slapping, as he got them both to back off from a hot war--to understand why Chavez is so respected among South American leaders, and their peoples.)
So-o-o, fast-forward to now, and this current round of Chavez-Uribe economic initiatives. Colombia is very isolated in South America, surrounded by leftist countries, and Uribe is NOT well-liked. He doesn't have a jolly bone in his body. He is a Bush imitation (though he may be smarter than Bush), propped up by death squads (that he tries to keep his hands clean of) and narco-trafficking, and trying to get a "free trade" deal out of the U.S. He needs Chavez and UNASUR more than they need him. They want him in order to have unity (which they did achieve, by the way, at the UNASUR meeting dealing with the recent Bushwhack coup plot in Bolivia--Colombia voted with the majority to back the Morales government in Bolivia, which had thrown the U.S. ambassador out of the country). And just think for a moment of the amazing nature of this Colombia-Venezuela economic cooperation--between the most progressive government of South America--an advocate of "Socialism for the 21st century," and the most questionable, fascist government in the region, virtually the only ally of the Bush junta.
It is remarkable. It speaks to the tension between civilian government and the military in Colombia, and to Chavez's desire for peace in the region, and for a new day of integration and cooperation, in which the U.S. can no longer "divide and conquer" Latin America. Chavez's ability to make peace with Uribe is an example of why Obama's apparent policy of hostility to Chavez is so foolish. This policy will never get anywhere, and its logical end is war--the war that Rumsfeld and Exxon Mobil and Defense Minister Santos want, to take control of Venezuela's oil, and begin to turn back the peaceful, democratic, leftist gains all over the continent (and into Central America*).
---------------------
(*Tally of leftist governments. South America: Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile (center-left). (Colombia-fascist. Peru--very corrupt "free tradist.") Central America: Nicaragua, Guatemala and (upcoming election--leftist way ahead) El Salvador. Honduras is leaning left and recently allied with the ALBA trade group, which is led by Venezuela. In Mexico, the leftist came within 0.05% of winning a couple of years ago, and will likely win next time around. Costa Rica is democratic and progressive, but recently went "free tradist" (--which could result in a leftist backlash, as unions decline and people get poorer). Cuba--that strange combination of monarchy and communism, with the best health care and educational systems possibly in the world--is hard to peg, as left or right. They cannot be described as democratic, but they are allied with most democratic governments ever to be elected in Latin America. Funny, how it's such a big deal in the U.S. to just "talk to Cuba." Latin America got over that idiocy long ago.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
