Brazilian Official Defends Chavez in War of Words between Venezuela and th

<clips>

Brazilian Official Defends Chavez in War of Words between Venezuela and the U.S.

Caracas, Venezuela, March 17, 2005—The International Relations Advisor to Brazil’s President Lula, Marco Aurelio García, defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez yesterday against harsh criticisms made by the Bush Administration, asserting that the criticisms were "ill informed" and that Chávez "is not only a democratic president, but he has also reaffirmed twice his democratic character” in the recall referendum and in the last regional elections. According to Aurelio García, "although the current situation is no different," the attitude of the US government has taken a 180 degree turn from when they worked with Brazil in the "Group of Friends of Venezuela." He contends that this change in policy and these hostile remarks are unjustified.

Aurelio García, who also mediated in the "Granda Affair" between Venezuela and Colombia, singled out comments made by Roger Pardo-Maurer, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the Department of Defense, as being particularly unsubstantiated. While speaking to a group of US senators on Tuesday, Pardo-Maurer alluded to a possible US policy change towards the oil-rich nations. "We have expressed our concern about actions taken by the Venezuelan government… and also about Venezuela's intentions in the region… we have reached the end of the road with the current approach."

Over the past two months relations between Washington and Caracas have steadily deteriorated. The Bush administration has criticized Chávez for allegedly supporting Colombian guerrillas and popular movements in Bolivia, and for purchasing arms from Brazil and Russia.

General Bantz Craddock, the Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, joined in the back and forth between the two countries last Monday, referring to Venezuelan arms purchases he said, "We are wondering what is the intent here. If it is for sovereign defense, obviously each nation can do their own... If it is to export instability, that is a different situation." U.S. officials have repeatedly suggested that Venezuelan arms purchases are either intended for Colombian rebels or will inadvertently end up in their hands.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1553

---

and an op/ed about how Colombia feels about Venezuela's arms purchases

<clips>

Colombia and Venezuela: No Concern Over Weapons Purchases

CARACAS, Venezuela, March 16 (IPS) - Colombia plans to spend 540 million dollars to modernise and strengthen its air force, a decision that does not at all worry its neighbour, Venezuela, to judge by formal statements by the administration of Hugo Chávez.

In an announcement to 21 interested companies, Colombian Defence Minister Jorge Uribe said his government would purchase 22 combat and tactical support planes to replace its fleets of U.S.-made OV-10 Broncos and A-37 Dragonflies, at a cost of 234 million dollars.

The replacements could be Brazilian Super Tucanos, U.S.-made T-6's or Pilatus PC-9's from Switzerland, according to press reports from Bogota.

Another 306 million dollars will go towards upgrading other air force squadrons "with aircraft equipped with the latest technology...to enable effective support for land troops and interdiction operations to reduce the destabilising capacity of the illegal groups," said Minister Uribe.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1399

Man! What these guys won't do to get their hands on some OIL!!!

:kick::kick::kick:

Our little buddy in Colombia (Uribe) seems to have gone
into a hole. After being "sick" for a couple weeks he
apparently decided to not participate in the new anti-Chavez
campaign. He is noticable by his absence, as is Colombia.

military aid despite the fact that Colombia has the worst human rights record in the Western Hemisphere. This year the Bushistas are asking for $484,000,000 along with a request to increase the US "troop cap" to 800 and the contractor limit to 600. Your tax dollars at work.

http://ciponline.org/colombia/aid05.htm

Brazilian Official Defends Chavez in War of Words between Venezuela and the U.S.

Friday, Mar 18, 2005
By: Sarah Wagner – Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, Venezuela, March 17, 2005—The International Relations Advisor to Brazil’s President Lula, Marco Aurelio García, defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez yesterday against harsh criticisms made by the Bush Administration, asserting that the criticisms were "ill informed" and that Chávez "is not only a democratic president, but he has also reaffirmed twice his democratic character” in the recall referendum and in the last regional elections. According to Aurelio García, "although the current situation is no different," the attitude of the US government has taken a 180 degree turn from when they worked with Brazil in the "Group of Friends of Venezuela." He contends that this change in policy and these hostile remarks are unjustified.

Aurelio García, who also mediated in the "Granda Affair" between Venezuela and Colombia, singled out comments made by Roger Pardo-Maurer, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the Department of Defense, as being particularly unsubstantiated. While speaking to a group of US senators on Tuesday, Pardo-Maurer alluded to a possible US policy change towards the oil-rich nations. "We have expressed our concern about actions taken by the Venezuelan government… and also about Venezuela's intentions in the region… we have reached the end of the road with the current approach."

<snip>

In response to such comments, Venezuela’s Ambassador to the United States, Bernardo Alvarez, recently expressed concern, in an interview with Dow Jones Newswires, that the intensification of US criticisms may indicate a "a policy change might mean going back to the policies of the Cold War that created so much trouble in Central America, and so much discontent within the United States."

Alvarez was particularly alarmed by recent remarks made by Pardo-Maurer as well, but not only for what he referred to as a "very simplified and distorted view of Venezuelan reality." In the midst of a slew of statements from Pentagon and State Department Personnel, Alvarez explained, Pardo-Maurer's comments stuck out in his mind for another reason: his close affiliation with the Nicaraguan “Contras.” "We are worried that in the development of a new policy a person who was involved in the insurgence against the Sandinista government might participate," Alvarez stated.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1553

administration: pay attention to what is happening in Central and South America.

Your worst nightmares are coming true. Many countries are moving more toward the left (*see Uruguay). Hugo Chavez is not seen as a threat, like you portray him.

On the contrary, he is seen as a charismatic speaker, a "man of the people" unlike you and your Washington cronies.

Like Princess Leia said in Star Wars, "the more you tighten your grip, the more countries will slip out of our grasp."

I bet they still do too.

Don

:shrug:

I suspect they are past the research stage by now. But we do not know where they are at for sure.

Don

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/brazil/nuke/

Brazil pursued a covert nuclear weapons program in response to Argentina's program. It developed a modest nuclear power program, enrichment facilities (including a large ultracentrifuge enrichment plant and several laboratory-scale facilities), a limited reprocessing capability, a missile program, a uranium mining and processing industry, and fuel fabrication facilities. Brazil was supplied with nuclear materials and equipment by West Germany (which supplied reactors, enrichment and reprocessing facilities), France, and the US. The country has a dependable raw material base for developing atomic power engineering, highly skilled scientific cadres have been trained, technologies for enriching uranium have been obtained, and there are several nuclear research centers.

Brazil's nuclear capabilities are the most advanced in Latin America; only Argentina has provided serious competition. Brazil has one nuclear power plant in operation (Angra I) and two under construction (Angra II and III). Its nuclear-enrichment program is multifaceted, with the military services involved in separate projects: the navy, centrifuge enrichment; the air force, laser enrichment; and the army, gas graphite enrichment.

The history of Brazil's nuclear programs can be traced back to the early 1930s, with the initial research in nuclear fission. Much of that early research was conducted at the USP (University of São Paulo), some by scientists who had been contracted from abroad. By the mid-1930s, Brazil had discovered vast deposits of uranium. In 1940 President Getúlio Vargas signed an agreement with the United States for cooperative mining, including mining for uranium and monazite. During the 1940s, Brazil signed three additional agreements with the United States. In exchange for monazite, the United States transferred nuclear technology. snip

Some observers have argued that Brazil is still seeking the technological capability to produce a nuclear bomb, despite the 1991 quadripartite agreement, the full ratification of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, and a provision in Brazil's 1988 constitution that bars the development of nuclear energy for anything but peaceful purposes. They note that Brazil's nuclear program is under the primary control of the military, which resents IAEA inspections. Brazil's Senate required a "supplementary adjustment" to the treaty that protects "industrial secrets," possibly the nation's Aramar centrifuge enrichment facilities, from on-site inspections. The Aramar Experimental Center was inaugurated in 1988 and is the only uranium enrichment plant in Brazil. It is located in the interior of São Paulo, in the town of Iperó. A further amendment was added that bans IAEA inspections outside the normal schedule. Finally, Brazil was allowed to provide an accounting of the uranium that has already been enriched, but the IAEA and ABACC have no way to verify that amount. The dual nature of nuclear energy allows it to be used for both peaceful and military purposes. The military application of Brazil's nuclear programs, therefore, depends less on technological considerations than on political will.

more

Of countries that want the bomb, to deter an attack from the United STates, so they can have a sovereign government.

which the USA wants to steal in the guise of "inspections." But we fully conform to AIEA inspections already. There's no way we could be developing bombs without being caught. So sorry, thieves, but our trade secrets are OURS.

But I do think they could build some if the need ever arises in a very short period of time. Probably within weeks. They have possessed all the necessary ingredients and know how for decades. The only thing missing is the will to build them. And after the way the US has been acting lately I would not blame them if they did. Actually after watching Bush in action and if I were a Brazilian citizen I would be demanding for my country to get on with building some ASAP.

Don

Just offering some interesting info for the crowd. You probably weren't aware of the industrial espionage angle. :hi:

...you don't happen to be a radio aficionado are you? I have made some (hundreds) real good Brazilian friends over the years by two way radio and was wondering if you may have be one of them? :hi:

Don

with weapons. Isn't that exactly what they said about Saddam? They never quite had the nerve to say Saddam was intent on attacking the US directly but that he would supply the terrorists with advanced weaponry even though Saddam didn't have any advanced weaponry and the great majority of the world knew that fact. Now it is going to be Chavez is supplying the rebels which are filling our streets with drugs. that is how we tie Chavez to the (immanent) destruction of America...National Guard get your gear together we are off to protect America from the horrible drug scurge....

so that US sheeple with buy the bullshit.

The US pattern for overthrowing leaders who refuse to kow tow to Uncle Sam is the same around the globe. In this hemisphere one need only do a bit of research about the Allende years in Chile and the Arbenz in Guatemala. Here's some declassified info. The Venezuelan government is well aware of these tactics, now being carried out against Venezuela, and wisely continues to keep it in the world spot light. Check the similarities.

---

Chile 1973
<clips>

...Kissinger personally requested an hour to brief Nixon on November 5 in preparation for a National Security Council meeting to discuss Chile strategy the next day. The briefing paper records his threat perception of an Allende government as a model for other countries. As Kissinger informed the president: "The example of a successful elected Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact on-an even precedent value for-other parts of the world, especially in Italy; the imitative spread of similar phenomena elsewhere would in turn significantly affect the world balance and our own position in it." According to a transcript of the NSC meeting published in The Pinochet File, Nixon told his aides the next day that "our main concern is the prospect that can consolidate himself and the picture projected to the world will be his success."

...According to the first transcript dated October 1, 1973, when Kissinger was informed by his assistant secretary of inter-American affairs of initial reports of massacres following the coup he told his staff that the U.S. should not defend what the regime was doing. However, he emphasized: "But I think we should understand our policy--that however unpleasant they act, the {military} government is better for us than Allende was."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB110/index.htm

---

Guatemala 1954
<clips>

Arbenz was elected President of Guatemala in 1950 to continue a process of socio- economic reforms that the CIA disdainfully refers to in its memoranda as "an intensely nationalistic program of progress colored by the touchy, anti-foreign inferiority complex of the 'Banana Republic.'" The first CIA effort to overthrow the Guatemalan president--a CIA collaboration with Nicaraguan dictator Anastacio Somoza to support a disgruntled general named Carlos Castillo Armas and codenamed Operation PBFORTUNE--was authorized by President Truman in 1952. As early as February of that year, CIA Headquarters began generating memos with subject titles such as "Guatemalan Communist Personel to be disposed of during Military Operations," outlining categories of persons to be neutralized "through Executive Action"--murder--or through imprisonment and exile. The "A" list of those to be assassinated contained 58 names--all of which the CIA has excised from the declassified documents.

PBSUCCESS, authorized by President Eisenhower in August 1953, carried a $2.7 million budget for "pychological warfare and political action" and "subversion," among the other components of a small paramilitary war. But, according to the CIA's own internal study of the agency's so-called "K program," up until the day Arbenz resigned on June 27, 1954, "the option of assassination was still being considered." While the power of the CIA's psychological-war, codenamed "Operation Sherwood," against Arbenz rendered that option unnecessary, the last stage of PBSUCCESS called for "roll-up of Communists and collaborators." Although Arbenz and his top aides were able to flee the country, after the CIA installed Castillo Armas in power, hundreds of Guatemalans were rounded up and killed. Between 1954 and 1990, human rights groups estimate, the repressive operatives of sucessive military regimes murdered more than 100,000 civilians.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

which weren't available until 1997:

Among the documents found in the training files of Operation PBSUCCESS and declassified by the Agency is a "Study of Assassination." A how-to guide book in the art of political killing, the 19-page manual offers detailed descriptions of the procedures, instruments, and implementation of assassination. "The simplest local tools are often much the most efficient means of assassination," counsels the study. "A hammer, axe, wrench, screw driver, fire poker, kitchen knife, lamp stand, or anything hard, heavy and handy will suffice." For an assassin using "edge weapons," the manual notes in cold clinical terms, "puncture wounds of the body cavity may not be reliable unless the heart is reached....Absolute reliability is obtained by severing the spinal cord in the cervical region." T he manual also notes that to provide plausible denial, "no assassination instructions should ever be written or recorded." Murder, the drafters state, "is not morally justifiable," and "persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it."
(snip)

Well, _{Right-wingers} have found a way, in their own minds, to believe that assassination IS morally justifiable. It's done because the world needs to be saved from the people they don't like. That's the explanation.

during the actual coup in Guatemala, according to the declassified papers in your second link. They claimed "only" one human being was zotzed, where as they destroyed many lives, then it got really bad:

The CIA scrambled to convince the White House that it was an unqualified and all but bloodless victory, however. After Arbenz resigned, Eisenhower called the Director of Central Intelligence, Allan W. Dulles, and his senior covert planners into a formal briefing of the operation. Cullather's account now reveals that the agency lied to the president, telling him that only one of the rebels it had backed was killed. "Incredible," said the president. And it was. At least four dozen were dead, according to the CIA's own records. Thus did the Guatemala coup enter agency lore as an "unblemished triumph," Cullather explains, and become the model for future CIA activities in Latin America.

In Guatemala, of course, "Operation Success" had a deadly aftermath. After a small insurgency developed in the wake of the coup, Guatemala's military leaders developed and refined, with U.S. assistance, a massive counterinsurgency campaign that left tens of thousands massacred, maimed or missing.
(snip)

So they won his trust that this was an easy exercise, comparitively, to get the right-wing into the positions of power in Guatemala, and got Eisenhower's approval, and then THOSE right-wing demons unleashed hell on their countrymen.

Makes you wonder if there was a slow dawning with Eisenhower to bring him to the point he urged people to turn AWAY from the temptation to seek more and more power through a burgeoning war industry in his FINAL speech.

Take over Venezuela as well. You obviously need the oil! No body will respond!! It will be easy! LOL! American's don't undertand the rest of us 5.7 billion humans. You'll be affectd in other ways. We'll make sure of it, don't worry!!

The Monroe Doctrine is no longer worth the paper it's written on.

Think Corporate and how to throw a few more wrenches in the machine.

Most of the folks over here in the Un-united States are fairly clueless of what their government is really up to at any rate.

School bully criticizes school nerd for enrolling karate classes.

:-)

America needs to leave its "hands" off The "Rest of the World". When American's get themselves involved in The "Rest of the World" - They are just not very good at it!!! American's need a Geography lesson first, followed by a "Psychology" lesson second. America needs to try and teach its children about the "Rest of the World". The "Rest opf the World" teaches their children about America.

<clisp>

Washington Sees Iran as a Major Security Threat, but Not Nuclear Brazil

• Washington, intent on wooing Brasilia, is prepared to look the other way on the nuclear front.

• The Bush administration has offered Iran economic incentives to abandon nuclear technology and development, (a right that Iran legally has under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), threatening that a failure to accept this arrangement will result in sanctions by the UN Security Council.

• Brazil, with a history of covert nuclear experimentation and construction, has refused IAEA total inspection of its Resende Plant nuclear centrifuge.

• Washington adamantly denies that Brasilia has plans to join the nuclear club—perhaps due to Brazil’s peacemaking efforts in Haiti.


In recent weeks, Washington has stepped up its aggressive stance toward Iran, threatening it with harsh UN Security Council-mandated sanctions if it does not abandon its alleged nuclear activities. But last Friday, President Bush offered to drop U.S. objections to Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) in exchange for a freeze on Tehran’s nuclear energy program. Iran continues to defend its right to pursue nuclear technology under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). U.S. officials have been claiming that Iran’s civilian program is merely a cover to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran has denied the accusation, saying that its efforts are solely aimed at generating atomic energy.

http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2005/05.32%20Brazil%20Nuclear.htm