BOLIVIA DEMANDS EX-PREFECT EXTRADITION FROM US

[Judi Lynn]

Source: NNN-Prensa Latina

BOLIVIA DEMANDS EX-PREFECT EXTRADITION FROM US

LA PAZ, Jan 3 (NNN-Prensa Latina) –Bolivia’s Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) requested to begin the procedures to extradit former Cochabamba Prefect Manfred Reyes Villa, who fled to the United States on Dec 15.

According to police reports, another former presidential candidate of opposition Progressive Plan for Bolivia (PPB) probably left the country in disguise.

Government Minister Alfredo Rada said Reyes Villa is now a “fugitive from the Bolivian justice.”

The former authority’s escape led to several dismissals in the intelligence services and a purification of the immigration department and the police personnel in charge of monitoring the check point in Desaguadero, an area that borders with Peru.

According to a police investigation, through some point of the long border between Argentina and Bolivia, Reyes Villa was able to escape before fleeing to the United States.


Read more: http://world.brunei.fm/2010/01/03/bolivia-demands-ex-prefect-extradition-from-us/

[Judi Lynn]

1. This clown Reyes took a major part in the Bolivian water wars.

Bolivia's Water War Victory
by Jim Schultz
Earth Island Journal, Autumn 2000



At 10am, President Hugo Banzer places Bolivia under martial law. This drastic move concludes a week of protests, general strikes and transportation blockages that have jerked the country to a virtual standstill, and follows the surprise announcement of government concession to protesters' demands to break a $200 million contract selling Cochabamba's public water system to foreign investors.
The water system is currently controlled by Aguas del Tunari, a consortium led by London-based International Water Limited (IWL), which is itself jointly owned by the Italian utility Edison and US-based Bechtel Enterprise Holdings. Upon purchasing the water system, the consortium immediately raised rates by up to 35 percent. That untenable hike sparked the protests.
In January, "Cochabambinos" staged strikes and blocked transit, effectively shutting their city down for four straight days. The Bolivian government then promised to lower rates, but broke that promise within weeks. On February 4, when thousands tried to march in peaceful protest, President Banzer had police hammer protesters with two days of tear gas that the 175 people injured and two youths blinded.
Ninety percent of Cochabamba's citizens believed it was time for Bechtel's subsidiary to return the water system to public control, according to results of a 60,000-person survey conducted in March. But it seems that the government has come to Bechtel's rescue, insisting the company remain in Bolivia. President Banzer, who ruled Bolivia as a dictator from 1971-78, has suspended almost all civil rights, banning gatherings of more than four people, and severely limiting freedom of the press. "We see it as our obligation, in the common best interest, to decree a state of emergency to protect law and order," Banzer trumpeted.
Local radio stations have been closed or taken over by military. News paper reporters have been arrested. Police conducted nighttime raids searching homes for water protesters and arresting as many as 20 people.
The local police chief has been installed as state governor. The "emergency government" now consists of a president (Hugo Banzer), a governor (Walter Cespedes) and a mayor (Manfred Reyes Villa), each of whom is a graduate of the notorious School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, Georgia (infamous for training foreign military personnel in terror and assassination techniques).
Rural blockades erected by farmers have cut some cities off from food and transportation. Large crowds of angry residents armed with sticks and rocks are massing in the city centers, where confrontations with military and police escalate.
Tear gas has engulfed thousands of demonstrators in downtown Cochabamba, while a large military operation is mobilizing to clear the highways in five of the nation's nine provinces.
All this puts Cochabamba on the front-line in the battle against a globalization of water resources. The Coordiadora de Defense de Aguay la Vida (CDAV, Coalition in Defense of Water and Life), a broad-based collaborative including environmental groups, economists, lawyers, labor unions and local neighborhood organizations, spearheads the campaign to prevent loss of local control over water systems. Its leaders either have been arrested or driven underground.
Bechtel Crumbles, Flees Bolivia
It has been one hell of a week here. The CDAV, led by 45-year-old machinist Oscar Olivera, has kicked the Bechtel Corporation out of Bolivia! (I'd like to see a consumer revolt in my home state of California match that!) The people stood up to President Banzer and martial law. I am in awe at what we were able to accomplish together, all across the globe, using the Internet. Hacking away at this keyboard in a corner of the Andes that few people in other places ever think about, we sent the news of what happened here out to many thousands of people around the world. In a matter of hours, we transformed the Bechtel Corporation from "the invisible hand behind the scenes" to a corporation right smack on the hot seat.

More:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Bolivia_WaterWarVictory.html

http://revolutionsweden.files.wordpress.com.nyud.net:8090/2008/03/imagen.jpg

[Ken Burch]

2. Send him back

Send "Goni", their American former president, back too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_S%C3%A1nchez_de_Lozada

[proud patriot]

5. agreed

[Vidar]

3. We're continuing our fine tradition of harboring Nazis.

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. I was wondering this morning if the CIA was protecting Mendele.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Seems like a lot of our CIA assets in Latin America are "coming home."

It's rather a disgusting parade.

-------

Some people think I'm nuts for saying that the Pentagon has a war plan for South America, with the war assets--the military bases, the escalation mechanisms--being put in place as we speak.

The failure of our CIA assets in Latin America--such as this one--may be one more indication that the U.S. is going to resort to force, to commandeer more oil for its great war machine and to impose "free trade for the rich." U.S. operatives in Bolivia and Venezuela have been exposed and have had to run for it (after emptying their bank accounts!)--not just old assets like Reyes, but the more recent operatives who have been plotting the secession strategy. (--secession of Bolivia's eastern gas/oil rich provinces, and of Venezuela's northern oil region). When Latin American democracy succeeds, the U.S. gets violent. It's happened time and again. And there are numerous indications that that is the plan now.

I do think they may have given up on Bolivia, though, and are going for a "circling of the wagons" in the Central America/Caribbean/northern South America region. They have the race issue to worry about in Bolivia (which Obama might be sensitive to, in so far as he has any power to direct U.S. policy in Latin America). It was pretty ugly when the Bushwhack/U.S. ambassador was colluding with the rich white separatists in Bolivia, who ran riot and machine-gunned some 30 unarmed peasant supporters of Morales. That filthy U.S. collusion got ALL OF SOUTH AMERICA UNITED behind Morales. And Bolivians themselves--a largely indigenous population--have really pulled together, and foiled every effort to assassinate or topple Morales. Bolivia also has mostly friendly neighbors--Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay. Peru is not friendly, but it's not Colombia (with a U.S.-funded military itching to invade it--Venezuela's problem). So it may be hands off Bolivia, for the moment.

What alerted me to the probability that the U.S. has taken its sights off of Bolivia was a fawning, pro-indigenous article that appeared in the Washington Post last week. WaPo's copy is written by the CIA. They don't really have reporters any more. They just have proofreaders, who check CIA spelling (which has gotten really bad with the Bushwhack purges of "the academics"). So we know what the CIA is thinking--back off from Bolivia while we have a black president. And it makes strategic sense. The Pentagon really doesn't want to take on Brazil. They want to slice off the upper part of their "backyard" --the northwest "hump" of South America (Colombia), the Gulf of Venezuela (oil reserves, facilities and shipping) and the northern Venezuela oil states (adjacent to Colombia), maybe Ecuador (lots of oil, adjacent to Colombia to the south), smash up the new leftist governments of Central America (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala) and reclaim that region (which they've begun with the rightwing military coup in Honduras), reclaim Cuba when the Castros die (CIA already there) and retain Mexico and the Caribbean.

That gives them lots of oil, lots of playground room for the war profiteers (i.e., the corrupt, failed, lucrative "war on drugs") and lots of slave labor for the corps.

Southern South America (Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay) will have a harder time forming a successful "common market" with the U.S. "owning" everything north of Manta, Ecuador. Peru--though it will probably go leftist in the next election--is currently a major thorn in their side. And Simon Bolivar's dream of a "United States of Latin America" will be dead (or, at least, limited).

Venezuela was attempting to organize Central America into a trade group (ALBA). Honduras had joined. The U.S.-supported coupsters in Honduras just quit ALBA (and looted the ALBA funds to which local trade unions had contributed). El Salvador's new leftist president, under terrific pressure, I'm sure, just decided not to join ALBA. The U.S. is intent upon "free trade for the rich." (Zelaya's raising the minimum wage really stuck in their craw.) But MOST OF ALL, it's the OIL (cuz they couldn't have Iran's). And they can't have the oil--that is, Exxon Mobil can't have the oil profits (they charge the Pentagon--and U.S. taxpayers--outlandish prices for oil)--without a war. 60% of Venezuela's oil profits are currently going to education, health care, bootstrapping the poor, etc. Exxon Mobil wants it all. They walked away from Venezuela because they couldn't have it all. And their plan to go back is a war plan. They hate Chavez with the ice-cold hatred of Lucifer in Dante's Inferno.

It's not just ALBA and "free trade for the rich" and socialism and sulfurous podiums and the RCTV coupsters losing their broadcast license. The Pentagon lusts after the Gulf of Venezuela, to fuel their war machine at greatly inflated prices for their pals at Exxon Mobil. And for Exxon Mobil, it's a vendetta.

I've mentioned all the war assets that the Pentagon is putting into place in the mid-western hemisphere, surrounding Venezuela's oil coast, in other posts. I won't go into it again there. I just wanted to mention the ancillary activities--such as the U.S. finding ways to divide Bolivia/Brazil from Venezuela, in order to dampen any reaction in those countries when they make their move against Venezuela. We may see the U.S. give Reyes back to Bolivia. If the WaPo is any guide, they are sucking up to Bolivia--and this would be a good suckup kind of gesture. They have also not retaliated against Brazil (that I know of) for its quite direct support of President Zelaya in Honduras, nor for its welcome to President Ahmadinejad of Iran.

"Divide and conquer" could be--and sometimes is--a "soft" strategy--a way for our corporate rulers to accomplish their purposes short of war. It can be brutal and bullying, and it is certainly unconscionable, but at least bombs are not falling on innocent people and blowing them to smithereens. The evidences of a "divide and conquer" strategy do not necessarily point to war. But in this case--current U.S. policy in Latin America--they are combined with the dramatic U.S. military buildup in Colombia and the other evidences of a war plan. I think we should keep this in mind, as things develop over the new year in Latin America. Are U.S. "divide and conquer" activities aimed--as I think they will be--at isolating Venezuela (which the Bushwhacks failed at)? Are they aimed at causing Bolivia, Brazil or other "southern cone" countries to hesitate in coming to Venezuela's defense? Is the U.S. military buildup in Latin America "mere" war profiteering? Is it "mere" threatening and bullying of Venezuela and the mid-hemisphere region? Is the U.S. "merely" pursuing a political/subversion strategy--or a pre-war strategy?

[bertman]

7. I don't think you're nuts, peace patriot. The Empire is built on strategic planning.

Couple that with the shock doctrine and you have a plan that reaps short-term profits but may generate some serious blowback for us.

Chavez is certainly high on the list of those who need to be "neutralized" in order for us to accomplish our goals. I'm going to go with a pre-war strategy. With unemployment rife and the Pentagon and Wall Street being the major recipients of our tax dollars, they'll have plenty of materiel and troops to throw at South America.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Interesting your connection of unemployment to "cannon fodder." I'm sure that's part of

the far rightwing plan for breaking the progressive middle class and permanently indenturing the poor in the U.S.

ES&S--a worse corp than Diebold--just bought out Diebold, and now has a 70% monopoly over the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines that got fast-tracked all over the U.S., 2002 to 2004, by the Anthrax Congress. ES&S has extremist rightwing connections that would make your hair stand on end.

So, when the U.S./Colombia seven military bases deal comes to Congress, it will be rubber-stamped. And Colombia has been working on a 'Gulf of Tonkin'-type incident possibly to help it along. (There are also the illegal US military overflights of Venezuelan territory, the US 4th Fleet off Venezuela's oil coast and other trigger opportunities.) I think right now we're looking at South Vietnam, 1963-early '64--"just a few military advisors" --and this U.S./Colombia agreement is the escalation mechanism.

I agree with you about "blowback." Looking at the whole situation in Latin America, the many strong alliances among the leftist governments, the motivation of people who have achieved democracy at last, despite every effort of the U.S. to deny it to them, the human rights record of the Colombian military (one of the worst in the world), and the probable demoralization of most U.S. "cannon fodder" (sent off on another war for Exxon Mobil, to kill people they have a lot more natural sympathy for than "Arab terrorists", in difficult, Vietnam-like terrain), I tend to think this war, if it happens, will be the "Waterloo" of the U.S. empire. I think the Pentagon will lose. And I think it will create a permanent breach between the northern and southern halves of the western hemisphere--a great tragedy and a great shame, when it could have so easily been otherwise, but for our predatory corporations and greedhog war profiteers.

There is considerable evidence, in my view, that the Pentagon does have a war plan, and it is in motion. Honduras was a key war asset that had to be secured, thus the "southern command's" cooperation with the rightwing military coupsters at the Soto Cano air base. There are all the new military bases in Colombia and other direct indications of a war plan. Also, the Bushwhacks rehearsed several scenarios in 2008, one in March (the U.S./Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador) and one in September, simultaneous with the Bushwhack Financial 9/11 (the U.S. funding/organization of the white separatists in Bolivia, who wanted to split off the gas/oil rich eastern provinces into a fascist mini-state in control of Bolivia's main resources). Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, said, at the time, that there is a coordinated rightwing secession strategy in three countries: Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela. Some of those U.S. operatives are on the run, but still, I think it's notable that the strategy existed and was tried out. And it's possible that the U.S. will work with some of these Venezuelan fascist plotters from their places of refuge (Peru, Miami) to bring them back to northern Venezuela as the rulers of the oil region, when the time is ripe.

The Ecuador bombing/raid had the added advantage (to war planners) of killing the FARC's chief hostage and peace negotiator, Raul Reyes (and 24 other sleeping people), to keep Colombia's 40+ year civil war going. Reyes was suing for peace on several fronts, including the hostage releases. That's a long story of extraordinary treachery by Uribe, and by the Bushwhack ambassador in Bogota (who's still in place) in which I think Rumsfeld might have been involved. But the upshot is: They killed all hopes of a peaceful settlement, and the FARC remains one of the excuses for militarizing Colombia--and, not unimportantly, for continuing to displace millions of peasant farmers from the countryside (tens of thousands of whom have fled over the borders into Venezuela and Ecuador, mostly trying to escape Colombia's military and its death squads and U.S. toxic pesticide spraying).

U.S. support of the narco-thugs running Colombia is so unjust as to be truly mind-boggling, but I guess we should never forget that the U.S. just seven years ago slaughtered a million innocent people in Iraq to steal their oil, with barely a peep from our benighted Democratic Party leaders, and many in full support. They are a cowardly lot, unable to face down the war profiteers and war criminals, and most are not even inclined to do so. I don't have much hope that we can stop a U.S. war on Venezuela, but I don't want us to be taken by surprise again. That's why I comment about it so often. And, as I said, I think it will be a disaster for the U.S. I want people here to be warned. I don't have a crystal ball. I can't say for sure that the Pentagon is planning a war. But I sure see a lot of signs of it, and they are on the increase, not decrease, since Obama was permitted to become president.

[bertman]

9. The Pentagon is ALWAYS planning a war. Or two or three. It's their life's mission and I'm

not being facetious. That's why they exist. It's not to "defend" the U.S., that's for damn sure. Who's going to invade us? LOL

The intelligence and police security state can take care of any threat to our domestic security, so that leaves the military to handle those pesky recalcitrants who don't care to give their natural resources to the folks at Big Oil and Big Mineral Extraction.

As far as Congress goes, they have been intimidated and co-opted to the point where we might as well disband them and let the Executive and the lobbyists run the show. That would save the American people a hell of a lot of money and still achieve the same results. Plus, we wouldn't have to endure the charade of elections and hoping for things to change.

What I'm finally realizing is that President Obama is just part of the continuum of Imperial hegemony. He couldn't stop this juggernaut if he wanted to, and he doesn't show any sign of wanting to. But he sure did make me feel good for a while.

[The abyss]

10. Peace Patriot

You remain one of the best analysts out here!

You are NOT nuts.

I still feel SA is a backburner option at this time. As you have noted many times (and you can’t say it often enough), the US is putting the infrastructure back into place in order to be able to project major force into that region. Any force projected will need to be troops on the ground and the oil infrastructure seized pretty much intact. The US doesn’t have that much muscle left. They could of course “glass” the area, but then they lose the prize.

I think the bulk of the resources the country has are still aimed into the ME. But the Chinese and the Russians keep playing chess while the US plays at being an occupation army.

Attacking in a conventional manner is not, in my opinion, going to ever happen. The US will have folded the government as soon as the Chinese fail to show up at the next T-Bill sale.

PS: Don't ever stop taking things apart!