US Nobel Krugman Sees Brazil and LatAm Changed Relations with Obama

Source: BrazzilMag. newsroom

US Nobel Krugman Sees Brazil and LatAm Changed Relations with Obama
Written by Newsroom
Tuesday, 21 October 2008

US economy Nobel laureate Paul Krugman anticipated that relations between the United States and Brazil and its Latin American neighbors will change significantly if the Democratic candidate Barack Obama is elected president in two weeks time.

Interviewed by Chile's La Tercera, and asked specifically about changes to future relations with the region if a Democrat reaches the White House, Mr. Krugman said "Yes. (President) Bush antagonized some governments. Governments which were not necessarily the most desirable, but had been voted in and with which we had to have an understanding."

Krugman also described the strategy from the current US administration towards certain countries in Latin America as rather candid. "The idea that democracy will always come up with desirable governments for us is rather candid and you can't build foreign policy on those foundations," said Krugman who is a regular columnist for The New York Times

A long time critic of President Bush and his policies, Krugman admits having defended the elected government of Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez when he was about to be ousted by a civilian-military coup six years ago.

"What I did was to denounce the coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002. These types of actions belong to the past and only generate us enemies, besides the fact that Mr. Chavez has proven to be a classical populist," argued Krugman.




Read more: http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/10062/

Is it any doubt the whole attack on Chavez is the workings of the Oil Industry and winger freaks to demonized Hugo for sticking it to them. I'm certain had Bush not squandered our military in Iraq and broke the Treasury (on purpose) that Venezuela would have been a prime target for invasion. Obama should appear to cautiously make amends with Hugo (when in fact its a no-brainer). And, start making allies especially one so near and dear to our energy needs.

Remember how the CIA tried to hand JFK a 'fait accompli' war on Cuba, in his first months in office? That could be one scenario. And there are several others.

Only a few weeks ago, Bush-supported white separatists in Bolivia went on a rampage--machine-gunned 30 unarmed peasants, rioted, blew up a gas pipeline--in an effort to split off the gas/oil rich eastern provinces from Evo Morales' national government. Morales threw the Bush-U.S. ambassador's ass out of Bolivia for his collusion with these fascist murderers and rioters. Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, has stated that there is a three-country Bushite strategy to do the same in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela: fascist secessionist movements. In Venezuela's oil rich state, Zulia, on the Caribbean coast, they have a fascist governor (prez opponent of Chavez in 06) who is in cahoots with secessionists and probably with the Colombian military and rightwing paramilitary death squads next door. One possible scenario is that they declare their "independence," invite the Colombian military or paramilitaries (and US special forces, or Blackwater?) across the border, to start a civil war, then appeal to Bush to support their "independence" with the US 4th Fleet now in the Caribbean. At the least, this would cause one shitload of turmoil in South America. At most, the Bushwhacks and Exxon Mobil gain the greatest prize of all--Venezuela's biggest oil reserves and a strategic position with which to try to create a leftist-free zone in the Caribbean/Central America.

This could be instigated with some "Gulf of Tonkin" incident in the next few months, before Bush-Cheney are gone. I have reason to believe Donald Rumsfeld may be involved in such planning. What would Obama do?

A second possibility is a privately instigated civil war in Zulia, after Obama is in office. I don't think Obama would overtly support war on Venezuela, but he could wink at a private war, or a combo private war (Exxon Mobil, Blackwater) using billions stolen from us in Iraq and Colombian forces (built up with $6 BILLION in U.S.-Bush military aid).

A third possibility is that Obama DOES support such an action, and would provide overt or covert aid. The presence of Biden on the ticket, and the Clintons' active support, make me think this is at least a possibility. Bill was the initiator of "Plan Colombia." Hillary has very close ties to the fascist thugs running Colombia. Her chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, was a paid agent of the Colombian government.

Obama could proceed with a subtler "divide and conquer" strategy on the surface, while this kind of shite goes forward under the radar of the American people.

I have no illusions about Obama, on South American issues. He is the "nice face" that our Corpo/Fascists want to put forward in South America, until they can regain a foothold to control South American resources again--especially their oil, but also predatory financial control through the World Bank/IMF, and military control via the corrupt, failed, murderous U.S. "war on drugs." Ecuador's leftist president is about to throw the U.S. "war on drugs" base at Manta out of the country (80% of Ecuadorans favor this). Bolivia's leftist government is in outright rebellion against the U.S. "war on drugs" (which is basically a war against the poor). The U.S. "war on drugs" is one of the biggest war/police-state boondoggles, next to the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israel/Palestine.

We're talking major, MAJOR war profiteer interests--so big, and so corrupt, that no one--and I mean, no one--can stand against them, and expect to be crowned emperor of the U.S. That's just the reality. Obama may have the best intentions in the world--but he is walking through a minefield.

The best scenario that I think is possible and realistic is that Obama works out more peaceful relations between our Corpo/Fascists and the South American left. There IS room for compromise. These are DEMOCRATIC leaders--Chavez, Morales, Correa. They are close friends and allies of Lula da Silva in Brazil and the Kirchners in Argentina. They are part of the MAINSTREAM in South America. They are by no means "dictators" or extremists. And, together, these countries--Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and also Uruguay, Paraguay and, to some extent, Chile--are creating a NEW South America, committed to economic/political integration and social justice. They are NOT anti-business. Even the most leftist among them, Venezuela, has seen a nearly 10% economic growth rate over the last five years, with the most growth in the private sector. When you look at Venezuela's policies, you see that what they aspire to is European/Scandinavian-type socialism (universal health care, government control of resources for the common good, etc.)--in a mixed socialist/capitalist economy. They have a RIGHT to implement such policies. It is the will of the people--proven time and again, in transparent elections all over the continent. And the U.S. and its corporations have NO right to impose predatory capitalism, or any other policy (including the "war on drugs") in South America. As Evo Morales has said, "We want partners, not bosses."

So that is the key: The U.S. stopping its arrogant, violent bullying of these countries, and becoming a respectful partner, with mutual goals of prosperity and social justice. These governments will not permit the kind of global corporate predator exploitation, and U.S. dictation of policy, that has occurred in the past. Can Obama achieve a compromise between our capitalists and the people of South America? I don't know. Does he have good intentions in this regard? Maybe, but I don't really know. But one thing I do know: The Dark Lords--the Bush Cartel, Exxon Mobile & brethren, and their fascist colluders in South America--are NOT resigned to the present state of affairs, a truly democratic South America.

I hadn't heard that. I know that many Obama fanatics wildly claimed that Krugman was on Hillary's short list for Sec. of Treasury, but had never heard any rumor that he would be one under a Prez Obama.

I'm glad that Krugman defended two-term democratically elected President Hugo Chavez from being ousted in a military coup. I like Chavez a lot, and I noticed that the anti-Chavez crowd has remained silent as Mayor Bloomberg of New York City is working on overturning their 2 term limits law via legal and legislative process. Chavez also used the legal process to try to overturn Venezuela's equivalent of America's 22nd Amendment, but he failed by a narrow margin.

For clarity of thought, incredible intelligence, and good, pro-democracy instincts on economic issues, he has no peer.

I've been reading his columns in the NYT for years. There is no better analyst of economic issues.

It would be a superb appointment.

But can a U.S. adminstration with Biden on VP, and closely tied to the Clintons, tolerate such a truth-teller in its midst? I dunno. And especially on South American issues?

Krugman may have gotten himself x-ed off the list, by speaking a kind word about Chavez, given Biden/Clinton's close ties to the fascist thugs, murderers and drug traffickers running Colombia, and their past commitment to bloody-minded "free trade" and the militaristic "war on drugs" (war on the poor). Chavez--who can actually prove that he was elected (none of them can!) is their bogeyman. There is no Corpo/Fascist 'news' media campaign more dear to their hearts--since Iraq's mythical WMDS--than the disinformation campaign against Chavez. And even Obama has spouted its Papal Doctrine--that Chavez is "authoritarian." Jesus Christ, he never says that about BUSH and CHENEY! Chavez is as "authoritarian" as FDR! No more, no less. He is a strong leftist leader, on behalf of his people, and strongly supported by his people.

------------

Note on term limits: The Constitutional referendum in 07 contained 69 amendments, proposed by the Chavez government and the National Assembly. Among them was equal rights for gays and women. Venezuela is a Catholic country, with a particularly rightwing (some of them coup supporters) Catholic hierarchy. The rightwing ran ads that said that passage of the referendum would result in the government taking children from their mothers. It is quite possible the equal rights amendment is what sank this package of amendments. Voter confusion may have also caused it to go down in a very close vote (50.7% to 49.3%). It is by no means clear that Venezuelans were voting against lifting the term limit on the president. Chavez continues to enjoy a 60% approval rating. Our own FDR ran for, and won, four terms in office. Our term limit for president was a Republican measure, passed in the mid-1950s, to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening again in the U.S. The poor need a strong advocate in government, with time to attack and curtail the power of "organized money" (as FDR put it). Our own Founders opposed a term limit on the president as anti-democratic. The people should be able to vote in whoever they want and need in office. That was their view.

Our eternally living global corporate predators and their fascist front people favor term limits in order to curtail the sovereign power of the people over corporate predators. But they never object if the "president for life" is a fascist. And guess who bribed legislators to sneak through an extension of his term as president? That Medellin Cartel fascist running Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, whom the Bushwhacks and the Clintons are so fond of! Chavez, on the other hand, put it to a vote of the people! And his supporters may do so again. So what? They almost won it by a vote of the people first time around, in a referendum with too many amendments. I would like to see a clean vote on this issue in Venezuela. Is Chavez too powerful? Let the people decide.

Good idea.