Civil groups to protest against US troops in Peru

Source: Irish Sun

Civil groups to protest against US troops in Peru
Irish Sun
Monday 2nd June, 2008
(IANS)



Lima, June 2 (Prensa Latina) Non-governmental organisations in Peru have called for a general strike to protest against the government's decision to allow US troops helping the civil administration to carry arms.

Earlier, the government had urged the US troops to help civil administration construct water-wells and classrooms in the country's restive southern province of Ayacucho where illegal armed groups operate.

The government's decision has been criticised by the opposition politicians who say the authorities have bent laws to allow foreign soldiers to carry guns.

Opposition combine Ayacucho Defence Front has announced that the strike will take place July 8.

Around 70 US soldiers have already been deployed and 350 more are expected to arrive.

Front chairman Iver Maravi said protesters would demand the withdrawal of the foreign troops, as its presence goes against the country's law.

Read more: http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/366372/cs/1/

Anybody want to start a pool on the real planned numbers? 500? 100? 1500?

This is from a Wikipedia relating to Nixon's involvement in the September 11th coup of democratically elected President Salvador Allende, and the bloodbath which followed:

State Terrorism
Main article: Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
The United States has also been accused of State Terrorism as a result of involvement in the coup against Salvador Allende, in which it has been claimed that the US was "intimately involved."<37> Prof. Stohl writes, "In addition to nonterroristic strategies...the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile...After the failure to prevent Allende from taking office, efforts shifted to obtaining his removal." Money authorized for the CIA to destabilize Chilean society, included, "financing and assisting opposition groups and right-wing terrorist paramilitary groups such as Patria y Libertad ("Fatherland and Liberty")."

Professor Gareau, writes on the subject: "Washington's training of thousands of military personnel from Chile who later committed state terrorism again makes Washington eligible for the charge of accessory before the fact to state terrorism. The CIA's close relationship during the height of the terror to Contreras, Chile's chief terrorist (with the possible exception of Pinochet himself), lays Washington open to the charge of accessory during the fact." Gareau argues that the fuller extend involved the US taking charge of coordinating counterinsurgency efforts between all Latin American countries. He writes, "Washington's service as the overall coordinator of state terrorism in Latin America demonstrates the enthusiasm with which Washington played its role as an accomplice to state terrorism in the region. It was not a reluctant player. Rather it not only trained Latin American governments in terrorism and financed the means to commit terrorism; it also encouraged them to apply the lessons learned to put down what it called “the communist threat.” Its enthusiasm extended to coordinating efforts to apprehend those wanted by terrorist states who had fled to other countries in the region....The evidence available leads to the conclusion that Washington's influence over the decision to commit these acts was considerable."<38>"Given that they knew about the terrorism of this regime, what did the elites in Washington during the Nixon and Ford administrations do about it? The elites in Washington reacted by increasing U.S. military assistance and sales to the state terrorists, by covering up their terrorism, by urging U.S. diplomats to do so also, and by assuring the terrorists of their support, thereby becoming accessories to state terrorism before, during, and after the fact." <39>

Scholars have written on Chile as an example of State Terrorism of a very open kind that did not attempt a façade of civilian governance, and that had a "September 11th effect" through the hemisphere. Professor of History Thomas Wright, argues that "unlike their Brazilian counterparts, they did not embrace state terrorism as a last recourse; they launched a wave of terrorism on the day of the coup. In contrast to the Brazilians and Uruguayans, the Chileans were very public about their objectives and their methods; there was nothing subtle about rounding up thousands of prisoners, the extensive use of torture, executions following sham court-marshal, and shootings in cold blood. After the initial wave of open terrorism, the Chilean armed forces constructed a sophisticated apparatus for the secret application of state terrorism that lasted until the dictatorship’s end...The impact of the Chilean coup reached far beyond the country’s borders. Through their aid in the overthrow of Allende and their support of the Pinochet dictatorship, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, sent a clear signal to all of Latin America that anti-revolutionary regimes employing repression, even state terrorism, could count on the support of the United States. The U.S. government in effect, gave a green light to Latin America’s right wing and its armed forces to eradicate the left and use repression to erase the advances that workers - and in some countries, campesinos - had made through decades of struggle. This “Septmember 11 effect” was soon felt around the hemisphere.” <40>

Prof. Gareau concludes, "The message for the populations of Latin American nations and particularly the Left opposition was clear: the United States would not permit the continuation of a Socialist government, even if it came to power in a democratic election and continued to uphold the basic democratic structure of that society."<41>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

It's so easy to see how South America has learned from its past and is building its own identity which will make it strong enough to resist the chance of this happening again.

It's a loathesome history, and it was all pulled off behind the backs of the very people who were being required to pay for this covert war on Latin America.

and their politics. How much is this going to cost us?

that would pretty much determine the purpose of the unit.

Peru is one of the poor countries that
got sucked and suckered into a free trade
agreement.

Pure evil.

including inviting ARMED U.S. TROOPS into his country TO KILL DISSIDENT PERUVIANS!

I am actually shocked at this. I didn't think he was THAT much of a scumbag and traitor to his people. Yeah, he sold them out on U.S.-dominated "free trade." Yeah, he's wrecking Peru's economy for the profit of the few. Yeah, he was the Bushites' choice, after leftist Ollanta Humala bumped their first choice, the fascist candidate, out of the race, a couple of years ago. But he wasn't the Bushites' FIRST choice. I figured he must have some redeeming features--maybe he thinks he's doing the best thing for Peru (and him and his pals getting rich, too--wow). But this outrage--armed U.S. troops in Peru--puts him squarely into the category of fascist, akin to the U.S.-funded fascist thugs in Colombia, and the fascist coup plotting groups in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries. I wondered about Garcia when he jumped on Colombia's "miracle laptops" and info from that tainted source was used to start harassing leftist organizations in Peru. Now we know for sure which side Garcia is on--as to the oil war that the Bush Junta has been trying to start.

One of the Bushites' problems in starting Oil War II (South America) has been their LOSS of strategic ground. For instance, just when they had it all figured out, to split off the gas/oil rich eastern provinces of Bolivia (white racist 'apartheid' movement to heist the country's resources--organized and funded by the Bushites), and ferry U.S. troops into land-locked Bolivia, to support the separatists' "independence," from the U.S. air base in adjacent Paraguay, Paraguay elected a LEFTIST, who wants the U.S. base and U.S. troops out of his country, and will never agree to U.S. interference in neighboring Bolivia. Ecuador's leftist government as well wants the U.S. base out of Ecuador.

So this welcome to ARMED U.S. TROOPS by Garcia in Peru (adjacent to Bolivia to the south, and Ecuador to the north) is NOT occurring in isolation. It is occurring in the CONTEXT of Bushite regional war planning on behalf of oil and other corporate interests. Garcia has provided the Bushites with the strategic ground they have been losing elsewhere.

And do bear in mind that Corporate Democrats both follow up on Bushite war and fascism, and prepare new ground for more fascism and for U.S.-based multinationals. Clinton, for instance, softened up Iraq (with eight years of sanctions and no-fly zone bombings) for the Bush II invasion. He also, of course, decimated South American economies with "free trade" and ruinous World Bank/IMF loans. Barack Obama voted FOR the Peru "free trade" deal, claiming that it contains labor and environmental protections (yeah, it does--ON PAPER), and announced in Miami that he's all for the U.S. "war on drugs" (more billions of our tax dollars to South American fascists--including to Garcia in Peru).

Sadly, I think there is little hope that Obama will pursue truly enlightened policy in Latin America. He is not so directly associated with fascists as Hillary Clinton is (--Clinton, who hired Mark Penn--the paid agent of the Colombian government--as her chief campaign adviser--jeez!). He says he will "talk to our enemies," but the problem is who he things our "enemies" are. "Enemies" of the American people--or, "enemies" of Exxon Mobil? "Our" interests and corporate interests are NOT the same. Indeed, the global corporate predators who choose U.S. presidents are the chief enemy of the American people, just as they are the enemy of the people of Latin America. In Miami, he was not speaking for us; he was speaking for them. They want armed U.S. troops in Peru, and everywhere in the region--and here as well--because only by violent force can they continue looting the poor and raping the planet. Obama may put a nicer face on it, for a while. Then the "boot" comes down again.

Obama is not as easy to suss out as Clinton. His supporters clearly want peace and justice and enlightened change. Does he? And if he does, will they permit him to become president, or, if they decide that stealing another election is too risky, and let him become president (but with a shaved mandate), will he be able to implement truly enlightened policy? A lot of "if's" in my mind around Obama. And, if his Miami speech is any guide, South America is in for a "softening up" period--after the Bushite failure to destroy democracy--in which Obama worms U.S. troops back into region, through corrupt fascists like Garcia in Peru (and the monsters in Colombia), spreads new consulates and "Peace Corps" workers all over the region (better spying capabilities), and pursues a "kinder gentler" corporate "divide and conquer" strategy; then, when he's drummed out of office by the venomous armies of the fascist media (and by Diebold & brethren), in 2012, the Corporate Rulers make their move, via the fascist secessionist states (in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia), and OCCUPY the South American oil fields with the U.S. MILITARY, backed by the newly reconstituted 4th Fleet.

The South Americans are a lot savvier than we are, about U.S. intentions, and I'm convinced they are going to win this war for control of their resources and independence from the U.S.--despite traitorous worms like Garcia in Peru, and Uribe in Colombia. These jerks are way outnumbered, and very isolated. The rest of the continent is moving in a very positive direction--toward a Latin American "Common Market" (and common defense!), sans the U.S. I think it's very likely that Garcia will lose to the left (probably Ollanta Humala) in the next election. And then there will be only murderous Colombia as the U.S./corporate predator tool.

It's a concept that the electorate "gets", the politicians don't seem to and the corporations never will.

Well said, BTW.