From the OP:
Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that last year Chilean President Bachelet urged the Obama administration to avoid separating South American nations into ideological pigeonholes:
"President Bachelet emphasized the need to understand the nuances of Latin America’s leaders and their countries rather than lumping them into populist and pro-western camps … emphasizing that Morales was very different from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez."--
But Batchelet falls right into that very "divide and conquer" trap--trying to distinguish, for her U.S. interlocutors, between leaders who consider themselves "brothers" (Chavez and Morales) and who work closely together for a common set of goals, in a common political/historical framework. This telling little bit of cable casts Batchelet's work on behalf of Bolivia's democracy, during the Bush Junta collusion with the white separatist rioters and murderers, in a somewhat dimmer light than I had held it. Was she in some sense trying to prevent Venezuela from coming to Bolivia's aid--trying to "divide and conquer" them, at least as part of her motive? However, we have to be careful about interpreting these cables. She may have had her reasons for telling Bushwhacks something they wanted to hear.
--
From the OP:
In prior years, Brazil has urged the US to establish direct dialogue with administrations that have clashed with the US. In a 2009 visit:
"…both Garcia and Amorim used the opportunity to encourage the United States to establish 'a direct channel of communication with President Chavez.' Amorim suggested that a good USG-GOV dialogue would have an impact on the domestic situation in Venezuela, as well, because much of the opposition to Chavez has ties to the United States."--
Ha! My point exactly to our anti-Chavez DUers about the "rightwing opposition" in Venezuela--that it is allied with the U.S. against the interests of the poor majority in their own country. We now know that the U.S. was covertly funding rightwing journalists in Venezuela to produce anti-Chavez propaganda, and we have known for some time that the USAID was funding rightwing groups (including helping to fund the 2004 recall election, which Chavez won handily). But here we have confirmation from Brazilian diplomats (bearing in mind the caveat about interpreting these cables) that "much of the opposition to Chavez has ties to the United States." Our rightwing DUers were appalled that I would suggest that the "rightwing opposition" in Venezuela were "traitors" (their word). According to these Brazilians, if they are being quoted accurately, this was/is a common assumption around Latin America.
--
From the OP:
And in a 2008 visit Brazil went so far as to offer help in establishing dialogue:
"Garcia suggested that, 'Maybe it is time (for the United States) to have a frank discussion with Bolivia' … Without wishing to be a mediator, he said, Brazil is willing to help in whatever it can, recalling a similar commitment he made to A/S Shannon two years earlier."--
I would sure like to know the date of this 2008 cable--before or after September? Because, in September, the U.S. embassy-funded/organized white separatist insurrection, to topple Morales (the elected government), unfolded, with riots and murders, and the white separatists' effort to split up Bolivia and take Bolivia's main gas reserve region with them into a separate state. Morales threw the U.S. ambassador out of Bolivia, at which point UNASUR, which had only just been formalized that summer, moved by Chile's Batchelet (its first head), produced a strong, unanimous resolution backing up Morales and helped to quell the insurrection. Brazil and Argentina (Bolivia's chief gas customers) were also especially helpful in making it very clear that they would not trade with a separatist state. (And, subsequently, a number of countries--including Brazil, Chile and Venezuela--took measures to help Bolivia and the Morales government--an extremely popular government, by the way.)
Was the Brazilian saying, afterward, that the U.S. should NOW "have a frank discussion" with Bolivia, or did he say this prior to the insurrection, and the Bush Junta-backed insurrection was the U.S. answer? And what did he mean by "frank"? (--the Bush Junta bullying Morales to be anti-Chavez?)
--
From the OP:
A Legacy of Division
If Obama takes either of these leaders' advice to heart, it will be a dramatic shift from the past. The Wikileaks cables show us a detailed history of the Bush administration weakening cooperation between Latin American countries. Not surprisingly, much of these efforts have been focused on separating Venezuela from its regional allies, but they also involved Brazil and Bolivia.
In a 2007 cable entitled "A Southern Cone Perspective on Countering Chavez and Reasserting U.S. Leadership," Santiago embassy staff develop a 6-point strategy to weaken Venezuela’s regional alliances:
1."Know thy Enemy" (information sharing)
2."Directly Engage" (more high-level US visits to other Latin American countries)
3."Change the Political Landscape" (boosting Argentina’s and Brazil’s influence as counterweights)
4."Play to Our Mil-Mil Advantage" (South American military training and peacekeeping operations)
5."Stress Our Winning Formula" (aid and corporate social responsibility)
6."Getting the Message Out" (public diplomacy)--
Two things immediately spring to mind:
1) Argentine President Nestor Kirchner's reply to the Bush Junta dictate that Latin American leaders must "isolate Chavez": "But he's my brother!" (--a reply that signaled the general failure of this Bush Junta policy, which included Brazilian Lula da Silva's refusal to go along with it). And,
2) You gotta wonder about this Bushwhack strategy being designed in Chile (in the U.S. embassy in Santiago). Were Chileans--or even Batchelet-- involved in any way? Batchelet did help the U.S./Bush Junta keep Venezuela out of their long overdue seat on the UN Security Council, around the same time, but she did take a lot of political grief for it, in Chile. (It was a very unpopular action.) Was she playing a double-game--pushing South American unity, on the one hand, but undermining it, on the other, by toadying to the U.S.? (And what was she getting in return?) At the time, I was inclined to give Batchelet a lot of "benefit of the doubt" because the Bush Junta was so horrible and so powerful. So she had to compromise for the sake of her own people? That's often the case with powerful fascist bullies. But I'm beginning to understand (with hindsight, and during this breather from Bushwhack power) why she was so criticized from the left in Chile, as a "compromiser," and why they feel that the socialist party (which she headed) was in need of a complete overhaul and rise of new leadership.
--
From the OP:
An earlier cable from 2006 shows the US pushing for Brazil to work against Venezuela’s relationships with other countries:
"Ambassador reiterated that the USG hopes more engagement by Brazil will serve to counterbalance Chavez' pernicious influence."--
Humph. Lula told them to fuck off. That's about when Lula started meeting with Chavez every one to three months to forge a common strategy for social justice and the independence of the region. He also backed up Chavez at many critical moments of U.S. treachery.
--
But the cables also focused on separating Brazil from the rest of the region. In 2006, this entailed nipping in the bud a relationship between Lula and then-presidential candidate Evo Morales, as well as other leftist governments. Embassy staff advised Ambassador Shannon:
"… you can focus on the GOB’s (government of Brazil's) outlook for what a Morales presidency means for regional integration, political stability and law enforcement. In particular, you can stress with all interlocutors our (Bush Junta) concerns about a possible dramatic expansion in cocaine production and export. … it will be interesting to press Garcia for explanations of statements by Lula last year that appeared to welcome Morales’ looming 'populist' victory, and of how the GOB sees itself now in relation to the "Axis of Evo" (Morales, Chavez, Castro)."--
My, my, my, how very treacherous they were! (um, Bush Cartel lucrative cocaine trade in Colombia...) Not to mention arrogant beyond belief. They demanded "explanations" of Lula's statements, did they?
--
From the OP:
This strategy of division was far from successful for Bush. In spite of the Bush administrations' efforts, Brazil and Venezuela kept their alliance intact.--
Yup! Hoorah!
--
From the OP:
In 2005:
"(Ambassador Danilovich) asked that FM Amorim consider institutionalizing a more intensive political engagement between the USG and GOB on Chavez, and standing up a dedicated intelligence-sharing arrangement. FM Amorim was clear in his response: 'We do not see Chavez as a threat.'"--
An "intelligence-sharing arrangement" with Brazil, to topple Chavez? Gawd. I like Amorim's reply.
--
From the OP:
And later, in 2008:
"(Bush Junta contacts in Brazil's foreign ministry) refuse to admit to us even in private that they are worried about Venezuelan interference in other countries. // And Brazilian diplomats insisted that they would continue their policy of cooperation, as Lula is a man who 'believes deeply in South American unity."--
Yup.
--
From the OP:
In 2008:
"…the USG encourages the GOB (government of Brazil) to assume greater leadership responsibilities, but the GOB (government of Brazil) is reluctant to take the controversial stances that go with leadership. Diaz replied that Brazil cannot assume leadership alone in the region, it must have partners, which would naturally be Argentina and Colombia, just as Germany and France are essential to each other in Europe. As a result, Brazil must continue to act in harmony with them and other regional players."--
Rather a loaded cable. And, again, I sure would like to know the date in 2008. A whole lot happened that year--from the Bushwhack/Colombia treachery against Chavez on FARC hostage releases, early in the year, to the U.S./Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador, in March--to end all talk of peace in Colombia's 70 year civil war-- to the formalization of UNASUR in the summer, almost simultaneous with the Bush Junta reconstitution of the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, to the Bush Junta attempt to overthrow Morales in the fall.
In general what the Bushwhacks are doing is here is "encouraging" Brazil to join in these terrible activities against Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Latin American sovereignty and democracy. Brazil absolutely would not do it. And, when the Bushwhacks reconstituted the 4th Fleet (mothballed since WW II), Lula said that it was "a threat to Brazil's oil" (not just Venezuela's) and proposed a "common defense" under UNASUR's auspices.
I find Diaz's (Brazil's) reply mentioning Colombia somewhat puzzling. I'll have to think about it more, in terms of all that was going on in Colombia (hundreds of murders of trade unionists and other leftists), U.S. $7 BILLION in military funding, etc. But Argentina and
Venezuela are much more natural allies of Brazil--both with peaceful, democratic, leftist governments, like Brazil's. I need to think about what Diaz was trying to accomplish with the Bushwhacks in mentioning Colombia as a "partner" that Brazil needed.
--
From the OP:
So far, the Obama State Department seems to have continued on the same path.
In 2009, several years after the US denied the intellectual property transfer necessary for Brazil to sell military aircraft to Venezuela, Brazilian diplomats explained to their US counterparts that it would be inconvenient if something similar blocked their sale to Bolivia.
"If Bolivia wants Super Tucanos, Lula needs to be able to sell them. Brazil can’t afford the type of embarrassment caused by not being able to sell Super Tucanos to Venezuela."
The status quo appears to be continuing with isolating Venezuela, as well. For example, during the Venezuela-Colombia tensions of 2010 (the U.S./Obama) chose a side rather than choosing to help ensure peace. While Brazil worked on de-escalating the conflict, the Obama administration reacted by agreeing to share intelligence with Colombia on any troop movements within Venezuela.
They did this even though they (U.S./Obama) recognized Colombia’s concern about Venezuela to be 'almost neuralgic.' Moreover, they knew that Colombia had intentionally provoked Venezuela into the 2008 border dispute, and that Uribe held that the best reaction to any escalation in tension with Venezuela was 'action – including use of the military.'"--
All of the above quotes are from the OP's "Common Dreams" article, by Rebecca Ray, a Research Associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net ).
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/10-7(Creative Commons License)
(All emphasis and the parentheses are added.)
-----
Just to comment a bit on the conclusion--about Obama policy--a complex issue, I want to point out that the anti-Chavez DUers were once again wrong, about who provoked whom in the Colombian/Venezuela tensions of 2010--wherein Bush Cartel pet, Alvaro Uribe, was getting all "neuralgic" about Chavez "harboring terrorists." Uribe was just plain nuts, at that point--but our anti-Chavez crowd defended him anyway.
Uribe then got cushy academic sinecures at Georgetown and Harvard, and appointment to a prestigious international legal commission, as well as U.S./CIA protection from prosecution for his many crimes in Colombia--after the CIA got him safely out of harm's way as pResident of Colombia. The "harm" would be what Uribe knows about Bush Junta crimes in Colombia.
We must not forget the context in reading these (mostly) Bush Junta cables. They were encouraging and funding mass murder in Colombia and some of our forces may have been involved in it. And they were more than likely drug trafficking. The lackey diplomats writing these cables were working for the scum of the earth--a criminal regime, drenched in blood, running the U.S. government and the U.S. military.
The Obama era cables seem less propagandistic and somewhat more realistic about Latin America, and their policy in
South America, as it has unfolded thus far, seems POSSIBLY a bit more peaceful in the pursuit of multinational corporate/war profiteer goals, than the Bush Junta, but the goals are the same. In
Central America--and remember that Venezuela is part of both regions and has been active with the barter trade group, ALBA, in the Central America/Caribbean region--the coup in Honduras is a very bad sign that Obama/Clinton have bought into the Bushwhack/Pentagon "circle the wagons" strategy in this region, and will likely be actively working to topple MORE leftist democracies (with Nicaragua, a member of ALBA, probably next on their list). And the Scumbag Congress (compliments of ES&S/Diebold) will be pressuring them on this, with the Miami mafia representatives in Congress having already met with Latin American fascists to plot the war they want to wage.
One key to the future in Latin America will be how well Dilma Rousseff--Lula's successor--holds firm on the issue of Latin American unity against U.S. interference. She has an even rougher history at the hands of U.S.-backed fascists (she was horribly tortured) than Lula (who was merely jailed). So chances are--and indications so far are--that she will not play this "divide and conquer" game with the U.S.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
