|
which also addresses these notoriously porous, unstable and often violent border areas, which are, at the same time, vital arteries of trade between these countries (Venezuela with a long border with Colombia to the east and Ecuador to the south).
What interests me is WHY these accords are occurring NOW, what the obstacles were before and other issues in the general political context. I think one of the chief obstacles to any Venezuela/Colombia accord is that the Uribe regime backed by the Bush Junta was infiltrating Colombian "Black Eagle" death squads into Venezuela, for the purpose of destabilizing the border areas and other parts of Venezuela, and attacking the Chavez government and possibly assassinating its leaders. We had hint of this with Uribe's wild, substanceless claims that the Chavez government was "harboring" FARC guerrillas. My "rule of thumb" with Bushwhacks applies to Uribe (a Bush Jr pal): whatever they say, the opposite is true; and whatever they accuse others of doing, they are doing or planning to do. So when Uribe started with the "harboring" accusations, we should have known. Only recently has it come out that Colombia's "Black Eagles"--notorious rightwing death squads, reincarnation of the AUC--have been murdering and terrorizing people, and organizing cocaine and other illicit trade in Venezuela. The "Black Eagles" are tied to the Colombian military and to the mafia-like Uribe government. It is no wonder that Venezuela could not achieve border stability and could not cooperate with the Colombian government and military to achieve it. The Colombian government and military were causing it--not only with "death squad" infiltration but also with mass terror against peasant farmers, which sent about a half a million poor Colombia refugees into Venezuela and Ecuador, fleeing from the Colombian military. Colombia--no doubt in collusion with the Bush Junta--were deliberately creating chaos.
One major obstacle to stabilization of these areas was the U.S. government, which has been FUNDING the Colombian military--to the tune of $7 BILLION in military aid--and supporting it with U.S. military bases and "forward operating locations" all over the country, and whose corporate/war profiteer masters thrive on chaos and use chaos to grab resources, enslave impoverished workers and subdue any opposition. The Colombian military were slaughtering thousands of trade unionists and other grass roots leaders, as well as driving 5 MILLION peasant farmers from their lands.
Another obstacle to border accords, of course, was Uribe, their crime boss lackey. Together (originating with Rumsfeld, I believe) the U.S. and Colombian governments were engaged in quite elaborate plotting to bring down the Chavez government in Venezuela and the Correa government in Ecuador. They were using methods right out of Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans" playbook--phony, manufactured "evidence" such as the "miracle laptops," to smear the targeted leaders as "terrorist lovers" (for instance, claiming that Chavez and Correa were helping the FARC guerrillas obtain a "dirty bomb"), and elaborate treacherous plotting to lure Chavez into helping Uribe get FARC hostages released, then not only using his FARC contacts against him but also sending rocket fire at the locations of the first hostages he got released, as they were on route to their freedom, very likely in order to hand him a diplomatic disaster with dead hostages.
Again, it is no wonder that these governments could not work with Colombia to stabilize the borders. The U.S. and Colombia didn't want stable borders, and were actively seeking to overthrow these neighbor governments.
What has changed? One thing that has changed, of course, is that Rumsfeld is gone. (I think he ran afoul of Daddy Bush on a number of matters, circa 2005-2006--one of them being nuking Iran, and another being the war between the Pentagon and the CIA, started by Rumsfeld and Cheney.) And another, course, is that Bush-Cheney are gone. But this did not automatically mean a change of U.S. policy in Latin America. The U.S. (Bush Junta) proceeded with a rightwing (white separatist) coup d'etat attempt against Bolivia as late as Sept '08--just before their party lost the '08 election--then the U.S. proceeded with a rightwing coup d'etat against Honduras, six months into the Obama administration. This latter was likely designed by the Bush Junta, but the Obama government did not react well at all and ended up supporting the coup government, albeit under severe pressure from a freshman U.S. senator--Jim DeMint (SC-Diebold)--who seemed to be running U.S. foreign policy. This sort of lunatic fringe has now taken over the U.S. Congress--so that factor has NOT changed and in fact has worsened.
Clearly, the Obama administration wanted Uribe out--and CIA Director Leon Panetta (Daddy Bush pal) personally saw to it--but they have cushioned his fall with many perks including protection from prosecution in Colombia, likely because of Bush Junta complicity in Uribe's many crimes in Colombia. So THAT has changed. Uribe's gone. And his replacement, Santos, almost immediately began to undo the damage to Colombian relations with Venezuela--and now Ecuador. Which brings me to "what has changed" on the Latin American end of things.
One thing that has changed dramatically is that U.S. targeted countries in South America have successfully fended off U.S. coup d'etats, with a new spirit of cooperation and having each other's backs among most Latin American countries (strongest in South America but also in Central America/the Caribbean), and their intolerance for the one successful U.S. coup d'etat, in Honduras. (Their has been another, in Haiti, but its coup aspects are not quite so visible). With their collective clout, and with the left predominant now, in the region, they have forced the coup government of Honduras to permit the illegally ousted president, Mel Zelaya, back into the country and to begin instituting constitutional reform. Another thing that has not changed, but that has not gone as the U.S. wanted, is that the Workers Party was reelected in Brazil, headed by Lula da Silva's chosen successor, Dilma Rousseff. Da Silva has been adamant about Latin American unity in the face of U.S. belligerence and interference, and Rousseff was likely one of the architects of that policy, as da Silva's chief of staff. And I think she gave Obama an earful of it, in his recent visit to Brazil.
What all this means is that Colombia stuck out like a sore thumb, as a "running dog" for U.S. policy and corporate/war profiteer interests, and was cut off from the "south-south" trade that the South American countries in particular have been developing--trade amongst themselves and with the "Global South" from Africa to Asia. The border closure with Venezuela, prompted by Uribe's warmongering and items like the "Black Eagles" infiltration (as well as by a very threatening U.S./Colombia military agreement) was particularly painful to Colombia.
In summary, it appears that the Obama administration has faced up to the reality of leftist domination of the region, which is committed to regional independence and also to social justice. U.S. corporations were not doing well on this more level "playing field" and U.S. war profiteers were also hurting--thrown out of Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay and held in suspicion nearly everywhere. And possibly Obama--who initially promised Latin America a new policy of "peace, respect and cooperation"--has achieved better control of the U.S. government.
For those of us who have closely watched developments in Latin America over the last decade, an accord between Colombia and Ecuador--and the one between Colombia and Venezuela--seem strange. It was only three years ago that the U.S./Colombia were dropping 500 lb U.S. "smart bombs" on Ecuador's territory, to extinguish a FARC hostage release camp just inside Ecuador's border (and all hopes for peace in Colombia's 70 year civil war) causing a huge fracas in Latin America and universal condemnation of Colombia. It was only a year ago that Uribe was dragging his wild, Rumsfeldian accusations about Venezuela and Ecuador "harboring terrorists" into the OAS--with this and much more occurring amidst reports of horrendous human rights crimes in Colombia, much of it committed by the Colombian military clearly at the direction of the Uribe and Bush governments.
Trade unionists and others continue to be murdered in Colombia. The bloody prep for U.S. "free trade for the rich" is not over. And I don't think that it is possible for the U.S. government to be sincere about "peace, respect and cooperation" in Latin America. It is a strategy--a ploy--and the goal is always domination. But it is a relief to see that Oil War IV has at least been put on the back burner, and that Colombia, which would have been the front for that war, is pulling back from that role, at least for now. Also, these accords would not be possible if Venezuela's and Ecuador's leaders had not received assurances from Santos/Colombia that the U.S./Uribe infiltration/destabilization activities and war preparations are going to cease. They are in a much better position than we are--or any other observers--to judge the sincerity of such promises.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
