Clinton's Failed Attempt to Mend U.S-Latin America Relations

[Judi Lynn]

Friday, 27 May 2011, 2:43 pm
Article: Council on Hemispheric Affairs
Clinton's Failed Attempt to Mend U.S-Latin America Relations
by COHA Director Larry Birns & COHA Research Associate Carol Ciriaco
May 26, 2011

Following in the wake of President Barack Obama’s trip to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador in March, Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton held a private dinner party on Wednesday, May 18, where she hosted six former Latin American presidents coming from Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Panama, and El Salvador. The dinner was part of Clinton’s newly hatched offensive in which she hoped to further mend regional relations that could, up to this point, be described as disastrous.

Although this country has always had some kind of presence in Latin America, as exemplified by free trade pacts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), it is perhaps better known for its infamous military intervention in countries such as Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Grenada, and Guatemala. However, in recent years, the U.S. has become increasingly involved in the Middle East and Latin America has dropped from the nation’s list of priorities. Intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, and, more recently, Libya and Syria—where threats from non-state actors have arisen—has taken firm precedence over any kind of vigilance driven by intra-hemispheric disruptions. Consequently, the U.S. has largely reverted to an old habit of ignoring the Western Hemisphere in its attempt to live up to its “big brother” reputation.

As a result, the Western Hemispheric countries have turned elsewhere in their quest for economic partnership. For example, in 2009, China bested the U.S. in becoming Brazil’s number one trading partner. Brazil’s imports from China, in the form of manufactured goods and electronics, increased from USD 1.2 billion in 2000 to USD 25.5 billion in 2010. Similarly, Brazilian exports to China—mainly raw materials such as iron, soy, and oil—grew from USD 1 billion in 2000 to USD 30.7 billion in 2010. Following the example set by Brazil, Canada has also coped with the reduction in exports to the U.S. by diversifying its number of trading partners. At the Council of the Americas’ 41st Washington Conference on May 11, Canada’s Minister of Finance, James Flaherty, announced that Canada is heavily involved in expanding trade relations with Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, Peru and now China.

Interest in China is a recurrent theme in Latin America. During a recent interview with the Financial Times, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos expressed his nation’s growing penchant to trade with China, stating that he is “interested in promoting more free trade agreements, and Asia is one of the objectives, because… Asia is the new engine of growth for the world economy.” Close ties specifically with the Asian giant are encouraged not only by Colombia’s status as a rising world power, but also by China’s use of “soft power.” Soft power, a foreign policy formulation based upon the creation of sustainable trade markets rather than direct physical control of nations, provides a form of relief for countries that have grown tired of the United States’ continual use of hard power, in which Washington projects its military strength in order for it to control outcomes in the Western Hemisphere. Although Santos assured interviewers that Colombia still regards the United States as a strategic partner despite its new relationship with China, it is clear that the exclusive one-up, one-down relationship America once had, almost by right, with Latin America is steadily unraveling.

More:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1105/S00667/clintons-failed-attempt-to-mend-us-latin-america-relations.htm

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. "Colombia’s status as a rising world power"

:rofl:

[Scottybeamer70]

2. Who can blame them for turning their attention elsewhere?

No country wants to be a friend if force is the preferred way.
That's not rocket science. How dare they use common sense!

[Peace Patriot]

3. This is a very odd article. I would say it's flabby-brained...

...like Christian Science Monitor articles tend to be, except that, beneath its laughable assumption that the U.S. has any interest in promoting democracy in Latin America or brings "security" to anyone, are dreams of U.S. corporate/war profiteer re-conquest of Latin America that stick out like (I was going to say something obscene but I won't) sore thumbs.

Like CSM articles, the second-hand lies and agendas are extremely difficult to disentangle, and you almost don't want to bother because the whole is so poorly written.

For example, the article asserts this absurdity: "Close ties specifically with the Asian giant are encouraged ... by Colombia’s status as a rising world power...".

Now how did that get stuck in there?

In truth, Colombia is a blood-drenched, fascist pariah, with more dead bodies of trade unionists and other victims of the U.S. funded Colombian military identified every day, FIVE MILLION peasant farmers displaced from their lands by state terror, endemic poverty with one of the worst rich/poor discrepancies in Latin America, and a gangster culture based on the trillion dollar-plus cocaine industry that has no rival in the world.

I suppose that death and mayhem could be considered essential to "rising world power"--if the U.S. were making the definitions. But Colombia is not only NOT "a rising world power," it is a weak and isolated country even in Latin America, despite its rich natural resources and despite $7 BILLION in U.S. military aid.

Colombia as a "rising world power" is like a phrase out of a Marquez or Borgas novel--it is surreal. It's like there's some guy in a basement in Bogota getting faxes from some guy in a basement in Langley and trying to translate a CIA disinformation point but not getting it quite right, and neither of these spooks ever seeing the light of day.

Recent moves by Panetta/Clinton and Manuel Santos (replacement for mafia king Alvaro Uribe) have indicated just how weak and isolated Colombia had become. Santos, for instance, dropped Uribe's insane warmongering against Venezuela, made peace with Chavez and re-opened the borders. This is because most of Latin America--and most notably Brazil, which can truly be described as "a rising world power"--is now run by leftists who have Venezuela's back. It was a matter of necessity for Colombia to make peace.

And it's VERY STRANGE that democratic, leftist Brazil is not mentioned as a new world power--the country with the biggest, most thriving economy in Latin America, where social justice within Brazil and in the region is a true top priority of the government. Clinton or Santos may blather about "poverty" but Brazil and its allies, especially Venezuela, have done something about it, and key to their success at reducing poverty is their rejection of U.S. "neo-liberalism"--corporatism, privatization, looting of "the commons," de-regulation of the rich and "austerity" for the poor. The true new powers in Latin America have shunned these policies and declared their independence--and are prospering, healthy democracies because of it. Countries that are still in thrall to these policies--Honduras, Colombia, Mexico--have huge, discontented, disenfranchised majorities of very poor people. They are unstable and wracked with state violence.

Colombia as "a rising world power" is a wish, a dream, a goal of U.S. corporate/Pentagon planners. Their target is Brazil which won't "play ball" with them, but their even bigger target is Latin American unity, as expressed, for instance, in the new LatAm organization, CELAC, which has been called the "anti-OAS"--a region-wide (all LatAm countries) organization that does NOT include the U.S. and its lackey Canada--or as expressed in its prototype, UNASUR (all South American counties), which was so important in defeating the U.S.-instigated coup in Bolivia in 2008.

The U.S. wants Colombia to become a "rising world power," based on the U.S. model (corpo-fascism) in order to break up this unity that has been mainly a project of the Left, and to rival leftist social justice economies with an economy prepped by murdering trade union leaders and other grass roots organizers that can undercut the others' markets with slave labor and "deregulated" resource extractors, and with the Pentagon/"Southern Command" joined with the U.S. funded Colombian military as the enforcers. Colombia's rich will also benefit from the gangster cocaine economy, with all those pesky little peasant farmers now cleared out (and driven into urban squalor as the slave labor engine for "free trade for the rich").

And that's just one phrase in this article ("rising world power") that seems to come out of La-la Land but bristles with aggression and blood-sucking intentions.

--

Consider, then, the paragraph that contains it:

--

"...Close ties specifically with the Asian giant are encouraged not only by Colombia’s status as a rising world power, but also by China’s use of “soft power.” Soft power, a foreign policy formulation based upon the creation of sustainable trade markets rather than direct physical control of nations, provides a form of relief for countries that have grown tired of the United States’ continual use of hard power, in which Washington projects its military strength in order for it to control outcomes in the Western Hemisphere. Although Santos assured interviewers that Colombia still regards the United States as a strategic partner despite its new relationship with China, it is clear that the exclusive one-up, one-down relationship America once had, almost by right, with Latin America is steadily unraveling." --from the OP (my emphasis)

--

So these flabby-brained writers interviewed Santos. Maybe they took the phrase "rising world power" right out of his mouth, and they present it to the reader as an indigested bit of meat that actually needed to go back down the gullet to be transformed into nutrition. For instance, they should have said, "Colombia, which has ambitions to become a rising world power, and perhaps rival to Brazil...". Like that. And then, if they were REALLY journalists--and not spooks in dusty basements--they would add, "...a goal that the U.S. has promoted with $7 BILLION in military aid to Colombia while winking at Colombian military atrocities."

But they are not real journalists. And, actually, I don't think Santos uttered the phrase. He's a bit smoother than that. I think it came from a Santos aide, a Clinton aide or maybe even somebody like Jim DeMint (SC-Diebold). And my reason is mostly the garbage about "soft power" that it is embedded in.

And here we get into such a tangled web of contradictions that it is difficult to know what the article writers even mean. On the one hand, they talk about the U.S.'s "continual use of hard power, in which Washington projects its military strength in order for it to control outcomes in the Western Hemisphere." What on earth do they mean by this? The U.S. has certainly surrounded Venezuela with military assets, and no doubt has a plan for Oil War IV on the Pentagon's Big Dart Board, but they haven't used that power. Then, in another paragraph, they state:

--

"...in recent years, the U.S. has become increasingly involved in the Middle East and Latin America has dropped from the nation’s list of priorities. Intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, and, more recently, Libya and Syria—where threats from non-state actors have arisen—has taken firm precedence over any kind of vigilance driven by intra-hemispheric disruptions. Consequently, the U.S. has largely reverted to an old habit of ignoring the Western Hemisphere in its attempt to live up to its “big brother” reputation." --from the OP (my emphasis)

--

The U.S. has "continually" used its military power to "control outcomes in the Western Hemisphere" but has "dropped" Latin America from the U.S. "list of priorities"??? The contradiction is stark but possibly instructive. (Pentagon put its Oil War IV plan on the back burner, have they?)

Then they throw in a further tangle of the web, that these countless U.S. wars have to do with "threats from non-state actors." Saddam Hussein, if I recall, was a "state actor." So was the Taliban. So is Gaddafi. So is Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria. This sidled-in phrase, "threats from non-state actors," is a colossal U.S. lie, started by the Bush Junta, to justify OIL WARS.

But back to "soft power" for a moment. Notice how they frame the purpose of trade among human beings--which began with trading chipped stone tools for seashell beads, or a handful of berries for a piece of roasted antelope...

--

"Soft power, a foreign policy formulation based upon the creation of sustainable trade markets rather than direct physical control of nations...".

--

"Trade" is "soft power"? We "trade" instead of kill?

Well, that may be what "trade" means in the high towers of U.S. "think tanks," but to most humans it means mutual benefit--fun, variety, creativity, ingenuity, socializing, sharing and peacefully making a living and a good life. The "marketplace" is a fundamental human need, in my opinion--and it is a complex human interaction that has to do with delight in our higher abilities to create or produce things that other people want, and to think about, count, reckon and exchange those things, in order to please ourselves and other people. It is not "power" (except in the minds of predatory capitalists). It is like the branches of a tree or the folds of a brain--a very complex organic interaction that serves the whole (the person, the tribe, the community, the nation). When "power" is exerted--by military force, by monopoly or bully means of any kind--the branches break, parts of the brain atrophy: that which creates the marketplace withers away. It ain't fun any more. Its products become cheap, inferior, useless or worse. Ingenuity dries up. Human interaction becomes limited, boring and fearful. And people feel unhappy and oppressed.

"Soft power, a foreign policy formulation...". Bah, humbug! We're talking about LEECHES here--the rich leeching off the poor, and producing nothing--whether the new moguls in China or the increasingly fascist and hysterical moguls of the "western world." Neither has anything to "trade" except that which is made by working people who get minimal, subsistence-level benefit from their work. This isn't a "market," here or there. It is a slave labor camp, from which the old, the sick and the weak are expelled when their usefulness as automatons is over. And when their mogul masters make these decisions--about "soft power" vs "hard power"--they are not included. Neither the people there nor the people here have even that satisfaction--that they have participated in policy, that decisions are made democratically. We all know it's rigged--and that we are their "soft power" slave labor or their "hard power" cannon fodder.

So whether this is Santos speaking, or the CIA or some billionaire's "think tank," the language itself is a snarl of subterfuge and lies, which is partly why it is so incoherent.

HOWEVER, as to understanding what is going on with U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, while this article is pretty useless because of its incoherence, it does contain some clues, if you know what ELSE is going on in the region and if you know how to (or want to bother with) translating its devious gobble-de-gook into informative language: Consider the following:

--

"In order to achieve Obama’s goal of increasing the upraised nature of U.S. relations with Latin America and Clinton’s goal of “reducing the inequality gap in Latin America,” the U.S. must push for increased involvement in the hemisphere, intervening, when necessary, to create independent nations first, and trade partnerships second, before it is once again bested by China. Furthermore, the U.S. must commit to new policies for Latin America and see them through while also striving to balance its involvement in the Middle East. Clinton intended for her dinner to be a step toward the vision she outlined at the recent Conference of the Americas, one for the U.S. “to consolidate democracy, embrace smart economic policy, continue lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty, taking on a more active role in the world, and generally making it clear that we are in this together,” but while her vision was commendable, Clinton’s actions are not nearly enough to make even a dent in the transformative scheme striving to improve relations in the Western Hemisphere."

--

Oh, my, it's quite tedious even to read it, let alone try to parse it. ("...to make a dent in the transformative scheme"?). But we could almost apply my "rule of thumb" for Bushwhacks to this summary of Obama/Clinton's goals in Latin America: 'Whatever they say, the opposite is true, and whatever they accuse others of doing, they are doing or planning to do.' It is pretty infallible for Bushwhacks, but "neo-liberals" are a bit trickier, because they like to be perceived as supporting democracy.

"Obama’s goal of increasing the upraised nature of U.S. relations with Latin America..." Useless twaddle. Drivel. Utterly without meaning.

"Clinton’s goal of 'reducing the inequality gap in Latin America...'” The opposite is true. She wants to enslave the majority at the bottom, jettison (or, as in Colombia and Honduras, kill) the non-cooperators at the bottom (i.e., trade unionists, et al) (as long as her hands stay clean), and further enrich the fascist few at the top who will cooperate with U.S. corporations' slave labor and resource extraction program.

The "neo-liberal" program in Venezuela, for instance, during the Bill Clinton era, did just this: The tiny fascist minority at the top basically gave away Venezuela's oil to multinationals like Exxon Mobil, in a 10/90 split, favoring the multinationals. They created a rich urban elite addicted to imported goods (Gucci bags, caviar, U.S. musak) which controlled the oil industry and the bureaucracy. This elite utterly ignored the poor majority with almost treasonous malfeasance--neglecting education, health care, local manufacturing/jobs, food sovereignty, and even the bare necessities of nutrition and water. The "neo-liberals" were also brutal, shooting hundreds of poor protestors. When the poor finally got organized, re-wrote and passed the new constitution and elected the Chavez government, Chavez courageously re-negotiated the oil contracts, to create a 60/40 split of the oil contracts, favoring Venezuela and its social programs, and gave the finger to Exxon Mobil, which refused this deal. (They want ALL the profits.)

Clinton wants "neo-liberal" governments, like the prior one in Venezuela, wherever she can impose them--a rich elite lording it over a vast poor majority, with most of the profit from Latin America's rich resources ending up in the pockets of the "first world" super-rich.

"...intervening, when necessary, to create independent nations first" (and "trading partners second"). The opposite is true. Independence is the last thing that Clinton wants in Latin America. What this really means is U.S. State Dept.-rigged elections, as in Honduras and Haiti--and, where the U.S. can't directly rig elections (as they did there), multimillions of USAID dollars (U.S. taxpayer dollars) to rightwing groups and causes, the purchase of 'journalists,' the feeding of "talking points" to the corpo-fascist media (as bad in Latin America as they are here--maybe worse), funding and training of local rightwing thugs to create destabilization, "dirty tricks" against leftist politicians, black ops, coups d'etat--depending on how desperate she is to remove the leftists from office or prevent leftists from getting elected, i.e., how desperate she is to suborn the independence, sovereignty and democracy of the country. In this, she is no different from the Bushwhacks, although she apparently wants to lower the U.S. profile on gross interventions.

The U.S. and Clinton want CLIENT states. They abhor independence in Latin American countries like the plague. They HATE it, that Brazil's and Venezuela's and other leftist countries' independent spirit has enabled Colombia's Santos--a supposed U.S. bought and paid for country--to do the same!

BUT, Clinton does not want to have to deal with scum like Alvaro Uribe. Too risky. (That mafioso is going to get indicted one of these days. Though the U.S. has been protecting him--probably because he can rat on Junior, re Bush Junta crimes in Colombia--he's going down. He's just too dirty on so many fronts.)

Clinton is into cosmetic democracy, not real democracy. In Honduras, in the martial law election--an election that no reputable election monitoring group in the world would touch--she rigged up her own phony group, with entities like John McCain's "International Republican Institute" (Tea Partyers!), to "certfy" that bloody farce, and in Haiti did virtually the same thing, this time somehow hijacking the OAS name for an "election" in which 75% of the people did not vote because the political party they belong to was banned from the ballot! This farce was "overseen" by a group composed of Haiti's main oppressors--6 members from France, the U.S. and U.S. lackey Canada, and one Jamaican.

"...intervening, when necessary, to create independent nations..."???! Utterly laughable. But the thing to understand here is that Clinton wants it to LOOK LIKE democracy and independence, whereas the Bushwhacks couldn't give a fuck how things look. They yanked Aristide out of Haiti and dumped him in Africa. They also (it was their design, I'm sure) yanked Zelaya out of Honduras. They applauded the rightwing coup in Venezuela. They were funding and organizing the white separatist rebels in Bolivia right out of the U.S. embassy. And they outright tried to start a war between Colombia and Venezuela/Ecuador. These blatant U.S. aggressions are what Clinton is now having to deal with in a region that has become much, MUCH more independent partly in response to these outrages. The Bushwhacks failed to "soften up" Latin America, as they were supposed to--in the fascist/'neo-liberal,' good-cop/bad-cop waltz--and instead hardened it, into a commitment to true independence.

What this sentence really means is U.S./Clinton "intervention" to create the impression of independence in U.S.-controlled countries, in order to fight the true independence of the others and their freely given cooperation and unity with each other. And this policy is the result of the failure of grosser, Bushwhack "interventions."

And I'm sure that "our" U.S.-based transglobal corporations and war profiteers are PISSED at this failure. They don't want a "level playing field." But that's what they are looking at, in much of Latin America, and so, apparently, they are willing to give a different U.S. strategy a chance--"soft power" (rigged elections, the appearance of democracy, subtler coups, cleverer dirty tricks, "divide and conquer" ploys, letting it seem like human rights crimes in U.S. client states are being addressed, disassociating from monsters like Uribe and putting a prettier face on corpo-fascism, etc.)

To be fair, I think this new U.S. strategy is, or may be, more peaceful, but, while I am most certainly glad that fewer persons may be murdered in U.S. Latin American client states, in the interest of transglobal entities and war profiteers (and in the interests, as well, of a more consolidated trillion dollar cocaine revenue stream to U.S. banksters), I think "soft power" is a one-two punch (as I said above, "good cop/bad cop). Violent economics also kill, though more slowly, and are often preceded by, followed by or accompanied by overt violence.

We have seen extraordinary murder and mayhem in Colombia, Honduras and Mexico--encouraged and funded by the U.S. in all three cases, with "soft power" (economic violence) preceding it and accompanying it. We may be looking at a quieter interregnum--a mopping-up operation, with excessive profiteering from the places that have been bludgeoned into submission. Then what? At what point will the Oil War be coming to this hemisphere? At what point will our corporate masters stop tolerating Latin Americans' control of their own oil, minerals, gas, water, forests, farm lands and other fabulous resources in the many countries with leftist democracy?

This article contains nothing we haven't guessed at, here at DU (--the new "Smiley Face" on Colombia, etc.), but it still feels somewhat ominous to see it laid out in these naked, if garbled, babbly, and nearly incoherent, terms. Blood-drenched Colombia, the "rising world power"--the answer to all their prayers for wrecking Latin America's hopes and dreams of democracy, independence and prosperity once again.

It has occurred to me that Obama's initial stated policy of "peace, respect and cooperation" in Latin America got sabotaged, right off the bat, six months into Obama's term, by a Bushwhack-designed coup in Honduras--to which the Obama administration responded very badly. They were "bushwhacked." And they've been trying to recover ever since. And they are now hampered by the current Diebold Scumbag Congress and its Miami mafia cutthroats. So-so-so (I sing to myself), they are getting around these obstacles by, for instance, having Santos play the peacemaker (re Venezuela, and re the Honduras situation) in their stead. I still don't know if this is a pollyanna hope of mine, or if there might be some truth to it. If this article is a reflection of the actual Obama policy--and not just weak-minded repetition of State Dept hand-outs and blather from rightwing LatAm politicians--then my hopes are dashed. The program is violent economics with U.S. military power on hold due to the raging Oil War elsewhere.

[yurbud]

4. thorough analysis! It just goes to show how far our press & pols are from telling the truth

about our foreign policy or anything.

Latin America was never a threat to us, and at most, any one nation there threatened the profit margins of sweatshops and the United Fruit Company. But those were enough for us to back coups, end democracies, torture, and kill people, mine their harbors, and make their life a living hell until they went back to doing exactly what they were told.

[Judi Lynn]

5. The author got that "rising world power" from Hillary Clinton, who used it several days ago! Crazy!

This man used to be fairly credible, but he apparently has gone over the edge.

I'm very interested in reading your article, will return later tonight to finish it. Hope others will read it, as well. You have seen behind the propaganda veil hiding these determined neo-liberals, or worse, long ago. I only hope more and more people will start seeing how the enormous lie gets through, cloaked in a flimsy tissue of mangled half-truths.

They've gotten really slick at this over the years.

Thank you for taking the time to illuminate this material.

.

[Peace Patriot]

6. No kidding? Hillary said it? What shameless bombast!

I know that her statements can sometimes feel like fingernails on a chalkboard--not because of voice or demeanor but because the content is so out of sync with reality. Obama also has this affect on me at times. I remember (will never forget) his U.S. "manifest destiny" speech to the Miami mafia, promising U.S. consulates and Peace Corps volunteers in remote areas all over Latin America and "restoring U.S. leadership" of Latin America. I think he MEANT to say "better leadership" than the Bushwhacks, but how it came across is that Latin American leaders are inadequate to the task of leading their own countries and NEED the U.S. to guide them. It was so insulting--especially at a time when leaders like Hugo Chavez, Lula da Silva, Evo Morales, Nestor Kirchner, Michele Batchelet and others were creating real, representative, responsive, honestly elected, visionary leadership of the region in the most remarkable political development of our era.

However, I don't expect big clunkers like that from Clinton or Obama. I expect blather and demagoguery not Bush Junior-ish faux pas.

Colombia as a "rising world power" has that same screech on the chalkboard quality as Obama's Miami mafia speech. Possibly she merely meant to praise Colombia (for all the trade unionists it has gotten rid of?) (sorry, couldn't help it--say, for accepting U.S. "guidance" on jettisoning Uribe?). Instead, she sounds like the authors of "The Project for a New American Century" laying out a favored colony's role in the Bush Reich.

It's a disgusting phrase anyway--"rising world power." It is completely clueless as to what is REALLY happening in Latin America--a new philosophy of SHARED power, cooperation, "raising all boats." I'm sorry I applied it to Brazil (defensively). Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff don't want Brazil to be a "world power" in the way that imperialists use that phrase--the "power" to kick others around, the "power" to exploit, the "power" to take, the "power" to dictate to others, the "power" to slaughter tens of thousands of innocents in war and torture prisoners with impunity. They have a much different vision--shared with all of the other new leftist leaders of Latin America--of peace and cooperation. This is quite remarkable in a country, Brazil, that could be lording it over others and strutting around the world like a "rising world power." They are quite deliberately NOT doing this, though they could.

I think, too, that promoting Colombia as a "rising world power" is meant to stick it to Brazil for Lula's and Rousseff's refusal to play U.S. games. I think Obama/Clinton got an earful when Obama visited Brazil to meet Rousseff--about Honduras, about the relentless U.S. "divide and conquer" campaign against Venezuela and about the "blue-eyed wonders of Wall Street," and about the many U.S. on-going wars and war plans. Lula, just before he left office, was trying to get Iran out of U.S. gunsights. That is his way, and he shares that intention with Chavez. Their premise is that Latin America's independence and prosperity depend on world peace, and who is the current destroyer of world peace? The U.S. So they buddy up to U.S. targets--offer friendship, cooperation, trade--in an effort to create peace and fend off war.

I don't know if Rousseff will go as far as Lula did. The U.S. "sanctions" against Venezuela's state oil company re Iran--useless though they are--may mean that this is one policy (Iran) on which she differs from Lula (i.e., that she did not sufficiently defend this Brazil-Venezuela policy, so they figured they could "divide and conquer" on this point--Iran). On the other hand, the "sanctions" against Venezuela may have been another "stick it to Brazil" U.S. gesture, trying to punish her for refusing to play the U.S. game on Iran.--are trying to "get at" her by being shits to Brazil's ally, Venezuela. I tend to think the latter is true. They are pissed off at Rousseff--thus, their efforts to punish Brazil ally Venezuela and promote Colombia as a "rising world power."

Rousseff was horribly tortured by the U.S.-backed dictatorship in Brazil, and is one of several new LatAm leaders who belonged to armed leftist resistance groups, and are now presidents of their countries. I doubt she ever forgets what was done to her by that regime, nor who was funding and arming them and training their torturers at the "School of the Americas."

[txlibdem]

8. Nicaragua remembers the USA's CIA-backed Contras

The USA funded, trained in Columbia "Contras" had a particularly gruesome method of killing:

A Sandinista militiaman interviewed by The Guardian stated that Contra rebels committed these atrocities against Sandinista prisoners after a battle at a Sandinista rural outpost: "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."<52>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

From the same source, regarding the US-backed Contras:

The Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR, now known as "Progressio"), a human rights organization which identifies itself with liberation theology, summarized Contra operating procedures in their 1987 human rights report: "The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping."<43>

PS, the Catholic Church has demoted the personnel behind "liberation theology" and erased it from church history. So don't count on any help from The Church, oppressed peoples of the world!

[The abyss]

7. Excellent Article recommend+

Thank you for posting Judi

[Peace Patriot]

9. So, if it's such an "excellent" article, please explain to me what this means:

"...Obama’s goal of increasing the upraised nature of U.S. relations with Latin America...". --from the OP

???

Sounds like gobble-de-gook to me. The article is extremely poorly written with way too much of this kind of foreign policy bureaucracy babble, to the point of incoherence.

I tried to ignore the worst of the incoherence and figure what the hell it was saying, first of all, then tried to penetrate what it appeared to be saying to the actual, reality-based meaning that lay beneath these kind of foreign policy exercises. I went to a lot of trouble to do this.

And you come in and just pronounce it "excellent," with no analysis and no clue as to what YOU mean by "excellent."

So explain. What is "excellent" about this article?

And what does "increasing the upraised nature of U.S. relations with Latin America" MEAN?

[The abyss]

10. It is an excellent article because it demonstrates

the total BS propaganda that is sold as news.... I love to see this stuff taken apart - as is being shown on this thread.

Chill peace patriot. This is what I once called "cartoon news". The more we see it taken apart the better.

Did we cross connect here?