[News] Bush and Uribe v. Chavez and Correa
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Mar 12 11:38:47 EDT 2008
Bush and Uribe v. Chavez and Correa
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16838
March 12, 2008 By Stephen Lendman
Call it another salvo in Bush v. Chavez with Ecuador's Raphael Correa
as a secondary target and Colombia's Alvaro Uribe as a proxy
aggressor. The Ecuadorean incursion was no ordinary cross-border
raid. It was a made in Washington affair that escalates a nine year
attempt to remove the Venezuelan leader and return oligarchs in the
country to power. It also threatens two regional leaders who know
what they're up against in Uribe and Washington, "friendly"
handshakes in the Dominican Republic notwithstanding. The situation
is far from settled, and here's how events unfolded so far:
-- on March 1, the Colombian military illegally entered Ecuadorean
air space and invaded on the ground; the target was a FARC-EP rebel
camp; US intelligence was key by identifying the precise location to
bomb through satellite telephone tracking; Colombian Radio Cadena
Nacional (RCN) reported it heard a FARC-EP leader - Chavez
conversation three days before the raid; Colombian Noticias Uno TV
said "foreign spy planes" photographed FARC-EP's precise location for
the country's military to use in the raid;
-- it's also known that US Special Forces train Colombian
counterinsurgents, accompany them on missions, and likely
participated (covertly) in the March 1 operation;
-- Colombian (and likely US) forces attacked and slaughtered over 20
people in total, including 16 Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FACR-EP) members while they slept;
-- among the dead was FARC-EP's second-in-command, Raul Reyes; he was
FARC-EP's public voice, its key peace negotiator since the 1990s, and
the lead figure in the Chavez-arranged hostage releases; that and his
prominence made him a target so his death may disrupt the process and
current efforts toward resolving a 40 year conflict equitably;
Washington wants it halted, so does Uribe, and that's where things now stand;
-- Hugo Chavez and other Latin American leaders were united in
condemning the hostile act; the 35-member Organization of American
States, however, was tepid in its formal March 5 response; Correa
called it welcome but inadequate and insists on a formal
condemnation; Chavez was even more forceful saying: "We demand
condemnation of the Colombian government for this aberrant act," he
called it a "war crime (and blamed the crisis on the US) empire and
its lackeys;"
-- ahead of the March 7 Dominican Republic XX Rio Group Summit of
Latin American leaders, foreign ministers from Chile, Argentina,
Mexico, Brazil and Peru issued a statement demanding respect for
their national sovereignty; Chavez called the meeting "positive" and
advocated "cooling tensions;" he supported Ecuador and said: "We
don't want war;"
-- Chavez, Correa and Uribe exchanged cool handshakes and pro forma
conciliatory statements at the Summit; for what it's worth, Uribe
issued a "formal apology" to the Ecuadorean government and its
people; call it disingenuous diplomacy; it settles nothing in spite
of how the media played it or that Venezuela and Colombia restored
diplomatic ties; for his part, Correa said it will be "difficult to
recover trust" and reestablishing normal relations "will take a little time;"
-- one example of media coverage came from correspondent Simon Romero
of The New York Times; he's always disingenuous and never neutral; he
reported "handshakes and warm embraces....ended the dispute" as
though nothing ever happened and it's again business as usual; in
fact, nothing is settled; the incident still simmers, it's just a
matter of time before the next one erupts, and Chavez, Correa and
other regional leaders know it; so does Washington that plans them;
-- earlier, Chavez also called Colombia the "Israel of Latin America"
saying both countries claimed "a supposed right to defense," to bomb
and invade neighbors on orders from Washington;
-- Uribe confirmed it by saying he "refused to rule out future
military incursions into Ecuador or Venezuela," so expect more
provocations ahead with full Washington backing;
-- at the same time, huge crowds of Colombians at home and abroad
marched for peace and against terrorist acts; they denounced violence
on both sides and want it ended, but a new disturbing report came out:
-- the Colombia weekly Semana wrote that ex-Israeli military men are
fighting guerrilla organizations (meaning the FARC-EP and ELN), and
Defense Minister Juan Santos confirmed that "A group of former
Israeli military officials (including three senior generals, a lower
ranking officer and three translators) is counseling the military's
top brass on intelligence issues;" in addition, FARC-EP claims that
Israeli commandos were engaged against them along with US and British forces.
The hostile words followed with Ecuadorean officials citing
irrefutable evidence that Uribe's attack was premeditated and his
worst ever aggression against their country. Correa expressed
"outrage" and sees no negotiated settlement because "there is nothing
to negotiate." In Brazil for a meeting with Lula da Silva, he said
Ecuador is prepared to go "up to the ultimate consequences (over this
even though) nobody wants war. But we won't fool ourselves. The war
was started by Colombia. We were bombed."
Correa and Chavez both deployed troops to their borders, and each
country went further. Ecuador severed diplomatic ties with its
neighbor, and Correa called Uribe Washington's "unconditional puppet"
for his blatant act of aggression. Chavez also expelled Colombia's
ambassador, and called the strike "a cowardly murder, all of it
coldly calculated" and planned in Washington. He also warned Colombia
against similar Venezuelan incursions that he would interpret as a
"cause for war."
Uribe, in turn, defiantly shot back that Colombia will charge Chavez
in the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague for materially
aiding the FARC-EP by "sponsor(ing) and funding genocidal" groups.
Colombia's Radio Caracol then reported Uribe intends to "revise" or
"examine" his charges with no further details given. And on the same
day Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderon provocatively indicated
that relations with Correa "may be recovered," but it will be "very
difficult" to reach a diplomatic solution with Chavez. He and Uribe
have long been antagonists and have been at odds for months over
Chavez's hostage mediating success that embarrassed the Colombian
president and Washington in the process.
Colombian officials heightened tensions further through
misstatements. First, they claimed bombings occurred on their own
territory. Then they changed the story saying: "Colombia has not
violated any sovereignty, (we) only acted in accordance with the
principle of legitimate defense," and responded to fire from inside Ecuador.
Both statements were untrue and Chavez reacted. He accused Uribe of
lying and called him a "criminal" saying: "Not only is he a liar, a
mafia boss, a paramilitary who leads a narco-government (that's) a
lackey of the United States (but he also) leads a band of criminals
from his palace."
The war of words continues with Washington's OAS ambassador, Robert
Manzanares, accusing FARC-EP of "undertak(ing) repeated incursions
and infringements of national sovereignty (against Colombia's)
neighbors." Defense Secretary Robert Gates "applauded" Uribe's
action, and when asked if US intelligence supported it said: "Well, I
would just say that we are very supportive."
George Bush joined in, and jumped to his ally's defense. Well he
should as Washington provides Colombia with over $600 million a year
and all for one purpose - to support repression and the interests of
capital at the expense of beneficial social change. On March 4, Bush
phoned Uribe with assurances "America fully supports Colombia's
democracy (and) firmly opposes any acts of aggression that could
destabilize the region." He also called sending Venezuelan troops to
the border "provocative maneuvers."
In addition, he used the crisis to push Congress to approve a trade
deal that's been stalled over issues of Uribe's paramilitary links
and the country's human rights record. Bush did what he always does.
He cited national security and said ratification is a way to counter
leaders like Chavez who destabilize the region. "If we fail to
approve this agreement, we will let down our close ally, we will
damage our credibility (and) will embolden the demagogues in our hemisphere."
Consider comments as well from US presidential candidates. On March
3, Barack Obama said: "The Colombian people have suffered for more
than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and
the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the...FARC."
Hillary Clinton was even more hostile stating: "Hugo Chavez's order
yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is
unwarranted and dangerous. (Colombia) has every right to defend
itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have
kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By
praising and supporting the (FARC-EP), Chavez is openly siding with
terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and
security in the region. (Chavez) must call a halt to this provocative
action. As president, I will....press Chavez to change course."
Then there's John McCain who even scares some in the Pentagon and is
virulently hostile to Chavez. He calls him a "wacko" and
"two-bit-dictator" and advocates his ouster "in the name of democracy
and freedom throughout the hemisphere." As president, he'd be the
most likely to provoke a confrontation because he's ideologically
committed to militarism "to confront a range of security
challenges....in a dangerous world."
One writer calls him an "authoritarian maverick" and a man to fear
as president. Another describes his "McCainiac mentality," his notion
of occupying Iraq for 100 years or as long as it takes, and his
belief that militarism, nationalism and honor are their own rewards.
Still another expects a McCain administration to confront Venezuela
and Cuba by allying with regional rightest forces for regime change
in both countries. Add Ecuador as well and a determination to declare
"mission accomplished" before his tenure ends if he's elected.
Disturbing evidence of his belligerence is in his October 2001
commentary titled: "No Substitute for Victory - War is hell. Let's
get on with it." In it, he calls war "miserable business (but let's)
get on with the business of killing our enemies as quickly....and as
ruthlessly as we must....(post-9/11) we have only one primary
occupation, and that is to vanquish international terrorism. Not
reduce it. Not change its operations. Not temporarily subdue it. But
vanquish it....We did not cause this war (but) we must destroy the
people who (did)." Is this a man to trust as president who considers
anyone unresponsive to US interests a "terrorist" and state enemy to
be destroyed?
Democrats are no better, so expect the worst under a new president
next year. The "war on terror" will continue, and Uribe will get full
funding and support for internal repression and Washington-ordered
regional aggression.
By that standard, Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro have every right to
invade Florida to capture two resident terrorists for bona fide
crimes against their countries - Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando
Bosch. Posada is a former CIA operative who terror-bombed and killed
73 people in 1976 on Cubana flight 455 that Bosch likely
masterminded. Yet South Florida's Cuban-American community and the
Bush administration protect them as an expression of their judicial
double standard.
Heated Rhetoric and Provocative Charges
Further heightening tensions, Colombia's vice-president, Francisco
Santos Calderon, made an outlandish claim. With no verifiable
evidence, even some in the intelligence community are dubious - that
invading forces found provocative material on three recovered laptops
that supposedly show:
-- Venezuela provided $300 million in aid to the FARC-EP;
-- Chavez and Correa have links to the rebel group;
-- Chavez is trying to undermine, isolate and discredit Uribe and
wants to cleanse FARC-EP of its (undeserved) pariah status; and most
outrageous of all that
-- FARC-EP acquired 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of uranium for a
radioactive dirty bomb it wishes to sell for profit.
Former State Department arms smuggling expert, James Lewis, discounts
the story. He said: "In a lot of cases involving uranium deals,
somebody's usually getting snookered (and the 50 kilos) quantity
sounds really suspicious" because US intelligence would likely spot
anyone securing an amount that large. Chavez as well denounced the
claim and called the documents lies and fabrications. He also closed
Venezuela's 1300 mile long Colombian border, and at an extraordinary
Organization of American States (OAS) session, his representative,
Jorge Valero, said: "The Colombian government has lied blatantly. All
(its) accusations....against Venezuela and Ecuador are false, totally
false." Retired Venezuelan general, Alberto Muller Rojas, went
further. He denounced Colombia's "evidence" as an "exercise in
falsification (and stated that) the only foreign government that
finances the conflict in Colombia is the United States," it's done it
with billions for years, and in the same way it destabilizes regions
throughout the world.
Corporate Media Responses
A March 5 Washington Post editorial supported Colombia's aggression,
but that's typical for its one-sided type journalism. The commentary
said: "Colombia's armed forces struck a bold blow against
the....FARC, a group specializing in drug trafficking, abductions and
massacres of civilians that (the US has) designated a terrorist
organization....it showed how Colombia's democratic government may be
finally gaining the upper hand over (these) murderous gangs.
Now (Hugo Chavez) has been revealed as an explicit supporter and
possible financier of the FARC. (He) made a show of ordering
Venezuelan troops to the border (and) goaded his client (Correa) into
mimicking his reaction. (They) both may have something to hide
(about) financial links with the terrorists (and) backing an armed
(terrorist) movement against the democratically elected government of
their neighbor. No wonder (Uribe acted); he knows (Chavez and Correa)
provid(e) a haven for the terrorists."
The New York Times' Simon Romero's comments were more measured in an
article titled: "Colombia is Flashpoint in Chavez Fued with US," but
his message was much as it always is - one-sidedly supporting
Washington and its allies and hostile to Hugo Chavez. In this
instance, it's his ties to the FARC-EP and supplying it with millions
of dollars in aid. In an editorial, The Times went further. It
accused Chavez of "meddling and manipulation (and trying to) revive
his own flagging political fortunes" by getting involved. It added
"Mr. Chavez should just keep quiet. The more he meddles, the easier
it is to believe that the charges against him are true."
Then there's the Wall Street Journal that's even further hard right
since Rupert Murdoch bought it. It's March 4 editorial was titled
"Chavez's War Drums" with a sub-headline stating "A laptop spills
some of his secrets." The commentary noted "Colombia's....major
antiterror victory" and "Chavez....threatening war....But the real
news (was in) a laptop belonging to (Paul Reyes) that reveals some of
Mr. Chavez's secrets."
Columbia's "military (entered Ecuador) for legitimate reasons of
self-defense....the Venezuelan bully....ordered 10 battalions and
tanks to the Colombian border, and warned of war if the Colombian
army staged a similar raid inside Venezuela....The war bluster is
phony because Mr. Chavez is already waging his own guerrilla campaign
against Colombia (by) support(ing) the FARC." The recovered "computer
contains evidence supporting the claim that the FARC is working with
Mr. Chavez (and) showed that Venezuela may have paid $300 million
(for the) FARC's recent release of six civilian hostages."
Documents also "show(ed) that the FARC was seeking to buy 50 kilos of
uranium (and sold) 700 kilograms of cocaine valued at $1.5 million."
The "military found a thank you note from Mr. Chavez to FARC for some
$150,000 that the rebels had sent him when he was in prison for his
attempted (1992) coup d'etat."
This type agitprop never lets up, so expect continued anti-Chavez
rhetoric ahead as the dominant media plays up every chance they get
to demonize him and support Bush's hostile regime change agenda.
Some Background on the Diplomatic Crisis
Venezuelan-American lawyer and activist Eva Golinger writes on how
Washington relentlessly targets Chavez. In November 2006, she
explained what's just as true today - that the Bush administration
goes at him by "three different fronts of attack."
-- the financial front by funding opposition groups "to obtain
control in all different parts of the country," including the
electoral process;
-- the diplomatic front by accusing Chavez of destabilizing the
region; also by "diplomatic terrorism," including sanctions "for
made-up things" like non-existent drugs trafficking or not
cooperating against it or the "war on terrorism;" and
-- the military front with a large US presence in the region, major
support for Uribe, and "use of Colombian paramilitaries (and)
intervention of US Special Forces; the paramilitaries are the
'actors'....they're....sent....to try to assassinate Chavez (but)
command-and-control is directed and controlled by the US Special
Forces;" the paramilitaries and Colombian army "do the dirty work"
while the US is "building up a secret (military) base near"
Venezuela's border; in addition, "there were attempts to push the
FARC into Venezuela to provide an excuse for Colombian troops to
enter the country (and) make (the) border a combat zone." At the time
Golinger wrote, she said there were more than 3000 paramilitaries in
the Caracas area alone. That number or more are still likely there
and elsewhere in the country, and in Ecuador as well.
Colombian-Directed Hostility Toward Chavez
Since his 2002 election, Uribe has been hostile to Chavez, and
Colombian paramilitaries continue committing border-area terrorist
attacks and within Venezuela as well. Uribe is Washington's key Latin
American ally, he's liberally funded for his role, and his background
makes him ideal - his hard right ideology, a wealthy land-owning
family background, and a tainted past history:
-- he's been linked to the country's paramilitary death squads and
drug cartels;
-- for over 20 years in various government positions, he supported
state terrorism, including kidnappings and assassinations - of trade
unionists, opposition group peasants, social and human rights
activists, journalists, and others on the left who oppose the
country's corporatist interests; and
-- he frequently violates Venezuelan sovereignty with full backing
and funding of the Bush administration calling the shots.
In his earlier writing, long-time Latin American expert, James
Petras, referred to "the Uribe Doctrine (that) lays the basis for
unilateral military intervention anywhere in the hemisphere (and
echoes) Washington's global pronouncements." They remain unchanged
and claim the right to:
-- "violate any country's sovereignty (through) force and violence;
-- recruit and subvert military and security officials to serve
(Colombian and Washington's) interests;
-- allocate funds to bounty hunters or 'third parties' to engage in
illegal violent acts within a targeted country;
-- (assert) the supremacy of Colombian laws, decrees and policies
over and against the sovereign laws of the intervened countries;" and
-- target Venezuela and militarily act wherever else Washington
directs it in the hemisphere.
Chavez correctly calls Colombia "Latin America's Israel." And
Washington funds it well for that purpose and to aid the Bush
administration's top regional priority - toppling Chavez with Uribe's
incursion the latest episode that signals further escalation. Petras
says Uribe acts openly, and he's supported "at the highest level of
the US government." Bogota ambassador, William Brownfield, is also
supportive. He formerly served in the same capacity in Caracas where
he frequently clashed with Chavez while there.
Petras also explains what Uribe's doctrine is up to, and it's clear
where it originates. First and foremost it's to support Bush
administration regional policies, specifically target Chavez, and get
billions in funding to do it. In addition, it's to:
-- "destroy Cuban-Venezuelan trade ties (to) undermine (Cuba's)
government;" efforts to do it may now intensify against the new Raul
Castro government;
-- assure Venezuela remains "an exclusive oil exporter to the US" and
sabotage Chavez's efforts to lessen his reliance on America by
serving new markets like China; and
-- prop up a key regional ally to assure rightist forces rule as a
reliable Washington proxy and consider its record:
-- Colombia is an internally repressive narco-state;
-- it practices state terrorism;
-- its foreign minister, Maria Consuelo Araujo, resigned last year
after her brother, a senator, was jailed for colluding with
paramilitary death squads; Colombia's Supreme Court also urged
federal prosecutors to investigate her father - a former governor,
federal lawmaker and agriculture minister on kidnapping charges;
-- its democracy is a sham; in last year's regional elections, 30
mostly left of center candidates were murdered; news reporting is
censored; journalists are arrested and killed; civil liberties are
debased; and the rule of law is tenuous at best under a president who
roguishly suspends it; he also packed the country's Supreme Court and
bribed and bullied enough legislators to amend the constitution to
allow him to run for a second term - the first time in over 50 years
an incumbent president did it;
-- its government is riddled with scandal; over one-third of his
party members are allied with paramilitary death squads; eight
pro-Uribe congressmen were arrested last year for their paramilitary
ties, and dozens of national and regional politicians are under
investigation and fled the country; in addition, Colombia's attorney
general arrested Uribe's campaign manager and secret police chief,
Jorge Noguera, for having supplied paramilitaries with trade unionist
names to murder; another former secret police official is serving an
18 year sentence for purging police records of paramilitaries and
drugs traffickers;
-- around two-thirds of Colombians are impoverished;
-- many thousands of its people are restless and leaving;
-- many cross into Venezuela with several hundred thousand now there;
-- wealth concentration is extreme and worsening; and
-- in the wake of his blatant aggression, Council on Hemispheric
Affairs' Director, Larry Birns, calls Uribe "Latin America's most
disgraced president." He says he's "scorned throughout (the region)
for being Bush's favored hemispheric figure (but his) legacy (of
aggression) will be a heavy cross for (him) to bear." He calls his
presidency "catastrophic," and his Ecuadorean incursion effectively
dooms it and his influence "on the hemisphere....Metaphorically
speaking, (Paul) Reyes....scalped Uribe and....hung (his) tattered
presidential sash upon a pike and walked the macabre sight through
(Latin American) streets." Uribe will pay an "excessively high" price
for "gunning down Reyes."
Contrast that assessment to conditions in Venezuela under Chavez.
They're mirror opposite so expect lots more trouble ahead. Tattered
or not, Uribe remains a loyal Washington proxy and will continue in
that role while in office. It's why Plan Colombia isn't about
eradicating drugs. Its about weakening Chavez and toppling the
FARC-EP and National Liberation Army (ELN) rebel groups that control
sizable portions of the country. Washington calls them Foreign
Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), but many countries disagree. Hugo
Chavez calls them a revolutionary army that shares Venezuela's vision
for a Bolivarian Latin America. Workers' Party of Mexico deputy
Ricardo Cantu Garza agrees. He says they're a legitimate belligerent
force confronting a corrupt and unequal political system.
And here's how prominent US attorney, Paul Wolf, describes the
FARC-EP: They're a "belligerent army of national liberation....they
conduct their conduct of hostilities by organized troops kept under
military discipline and complying (with) the laws and customs of
war....international law (doesn't prohibit) revolution, and if (it)
succeeds....international law (allows) the outcome, even though it
was achieved by force."
Progressive scholars and human rights activists agree, which brings
us to what still drives both sides of the struggle. Washington and
Colombia won't give an inch, but rebels won't yield until they do.
For his part, Chavez wants peace, but was grim in his outlook when an
American journalist asked if a confrontation with the US is
inevitable: it is, "because while we want freedom, they want to keep
us in chains....We want a fatherland; they want a colony....we want
peace," but Colombia and the US want war and perpetual conflict.
"Venezuela will never again be a US colony," and he saluted Fidel
Castro as he said it and called him a "great teacher."
Castro responded and called the Ecuador raid a "monstrous crime.
Deadly bombs were dropped....They were Yankee bombs, guided by Yankee
satellites. Absolutely no one has the right to kill in cold
blood....Correa has in his hands the few survivors and the rest of
the bodies." Colombian troops kept two prominent ones as trophies and
to collect millions in Washington-offered bounty. Correa, for his
part, "can (now) cry out like Emile Zola: J'accuse."
So can the FARC-EP. Petras calls them the "longest standing, largest
peasant-based guerrilla movement in the world (that was) founded in
1964 by two dozen peasant activists (to defend) autonomous rural
communities from" Colombian military and paramilitary violence. It's
now a "highly organized 20,000 member guerrilla army with several
hundred thousand local militia and supporters...."
Pre-9/11, most EU and Latin American countries recognized the
organization "as a legitimate resistance movement," and for several
years Colombia's Pastrana government negotiated peace with its
leaders. Since 2000 under Clinton and continuing under Bush, however,
conflict replaced compromise with a clear committed aim - support for
narco-state terrorism to "destroy the guerrilla army and its
suspected social base among peasants, urban trade unions and
professionals (especially teachers, lawyers, human rights activists
and intellectuals)."
Ever since, a bloody extermination campaign has been waged, and it
spills into Venezuela to topple its government and return the country
to friendly oligarch rule. The scheme involves pouring billions into
Colombia on the pretext of eradicating drugs. In fact, it's to build
Uribe's military and fund a "31,000 strong death squad (paramilitary)
force" that ravages the country, kills thousands of peasants and
people on the left, and engages in US-style abductions and torture.
With American taxpayer dollars, their post-2000 record is appalling:
-- over 2.5 million peasants and urban slum dwellers displaced;
-- more than 5000 trade unionists murdered from 1986 to 2006, by far
the most anywhere in the world;
-- "30,000 peasants, rural teachers, and peasant and indigenous
leaders have been killed with impunity;" and
-- "land seizures by paramilitary leaders, cattle barons and military
officers (that's) concentrating land ownership to an unprecedented level."
With this going on, the liberation struggle continues, and expect no
amount of billions to crush it. Colombia's conflict is civil. It's
not, as Washington calls it, a "war on terror," but it's clearly
state-directed terror against the Colombian people that also targets
Venezuela. It's the latest salvo in Bush v. Chavez that won't likely
end when a new US president takes office. So the struggle for justice
continues with no early end of it in sight and no chance whatever
that those in it have any intention of quitting.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at
sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080312/8d32942e/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list