--Venezuela and Bolivia--and both involve the attempt to split off provinces that are rich in oil and have fascist cabals conspiring with the Bushites against the national government (in the case of Bolivia, a white separatist cabal--extremely racist--with connections to South Africa's past apartheid regime--as Judi Lynn has pointed out). The Bushites cannot win or steal elections in most South American countries. These countries and their peoples have done too much good work on creating democratic institutions such as transparent vote counting. The Bushites have tried, literally, the whole bag of CIA tricks, in Venezuela--from support for a fascist military coup, to promoting a ruinous oil professionals' strike, to a USAID-NED funded and organized recall election, to assassination plots hatched within the Colombian military, to "suitcases full of cash" CIA-style capers out of Miami (trying to sully Chavez, and break up the Venezuela-Argentina alliance), and on and on and on. Now they are calling him a "terrorist," for godssakes, because he
accepted the invitation of their tool, Uribe, to contact the FARC and negotiate hostage releases!Nothing has worked. So they have to get the oil--and try to destabilize and destroy these democracies--by other means: 1. Trying to split off the oil rich provinces in Venezuela and Bolivia, and trying to provoke these democracies and draw them into a war (as they just did to Ecuador and Venezuela, once again using their tool, Uribe), or, 2. Conducting a war of attrition, harrying their borders, killing people, driving peasant farmers into refugee status with pesticide spraying, and continued collusion with rightwing cabals and death squads, to create instability, to drain attention and resources from social benefits, and frighten and bludgeon and starve people into submission.
It is my suspicion that Donald Rumsfeld is the architect of this war--Oil War II: South America.* It has his M.O. It is profoundly anti-democratic and treacherous. The first paragraph of his Washington Post op-ed, six months ago (simultaneous with his resignation as Sec of Oil War I), is treachery itself, where he states that Chavez's help in FARC hostage releases is "not welcome in Colombia." It had been welcome just days before. This was the very weekend scheduled for the release of the first two hostages. And what happened next was that Uribe's forces BOMBED the location of the first two hostages, as they were in route to their freedom in Caracas, driving them back into the jungle on a 20 mile hike, back into captivity. I think Rumsfeld was ORCHESTRATING this foul plot to hand Chavez a diplomatic disaster, with dead hostages. And I think it was rehearsed by Blackwater and Colombian paramilitaries about six months before (when a mysterious group of shooters tracked a FARC camp where hostages were present, attacked them and killed all the hostages--with the Colombian military then claiming that the hostages died in a "crossfire" situation, in a shootout between FARC and an "unknown" paramilitary group. FARC said that this unknown group targeted the hostages).
Treachery = Donald Rumsfeld.
*
"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.htmlHis hit piece on "tyrant" Chavez is mostly about how the Colombian "free trade" deal is important for economic warfare against Venezuela. But in the course of it, he not only reveals his interest in the hostage release negotiations, he also urges that the U.S. take "swift action" in support of "friends and allies" in South America. "Swift action" can only mean military action. And the Bushites have no "friends and allies" in South America, except for the fascists, death squadders and big-time drug traffickers running Colombia, and the fascist cabals
within democratic countries plotting coups. (There is also Peru, currently run by corrupt "free traders"--who will likely be evicted by the left in the next election cycle. The corrupt "free traders" need to be careful about cooperating on Oil War II.)
Which brings me to Bolivia and Paraguay--a rather different strategic situation than Colombia vs. Venezuela/Ecuador. The Bolivian white separatist movement was the situation most ripe for "swift action" by the U.S. in support of fascist cabals planning coups, at the time that Rumsfeld published his op-ed. The Bushites have been stoking these racists for some time--with funding, organization, strategy and probably arms. The white separatists in the main secessionist province, Santa Cruz, just held an illegal referendum--a vote that they entirely controlled (reputable international election observers would have nothing to do with them), basically declaring "independence" from the central government of Evo Morales (the first indigenous president of Bolivia, a largely indigenous country). Santa Cruz contains most of Bolivia's gas and oil reserves. I think what Rumsfeld had in mind was these white separatists requesting U.S. support for their "independence" (after the referendum), and ferrying U.S. troops to their "defense," in land-locked Bolivia, from the big U.S. airstrip in Paraguay (also landlocked). The rightwing government of Paraguay--in power for 60 years, and closely associated with a prior heinous dictatorship--also very corrupt--had been tolerating U.S. military on the ground exercises in Paraguay, with "war on drugs" cover. They would likely have made no objection to Paraguay being used in a plot against Bolivia. The gas/oil-rich eastern provinces of Bolivia are adjacent to Paraguay. The rich landowner elite could benefit from the creation of a resource-rich fascist enclave comprised of eastern Bolivia and parts or all of Paraguay.
However, just a few weeks ago, their 60 years of rightwing rule came to an abrupt end with the election of leftist Fernando Lugo (known as "the bishop of the poor"), who is not only sympathetic with the social justice goals of countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, but also he opposes U.S. military activity in Paraguay and the U.S. air base. He will not likely tolerate use of Paraguay in Bushite attacks on his neighbor government--and will certainly not be happy having fascist mini-state on his border. Further, the OAS (now dominated by leftists) and most other S/A and L/A countries oppose splitting up Bolivia.
So, it's back to the drawing board for the ever-murderous Rumsfeld and his global corporate predator employers. The white separatists in Bolivia will continue to cause trouble (war of attrition), while they proceed with creating a war between Colombia and Venezuela/Ecuador--a war that has actually already begun (first shots fired were ten 500 lb. U.S. "smart bombs" on March 1, destroying the camp, just inside Ecuador's border, of the chief FARC hostage negotiator, Raul Reyes, killing him and 24 others, including at least one Ecuadoran citizen--on the eve of the release of FARC hostage Ingrid Betancourt, negotiated by the presidents of Ecuador, Venezuela, France and probably Argentina). The Bushites had to stop the momentum toward a peaceful settlement of Colombia's 40+ year civil war. They violated Ecuador's sovereignty. Both Ecuador and Venezuela were obliged to reinforce their borders with military troops. The OAS (Bush Junta excepting) and the Rio Group condemned Colombia's act. No further shots have been fired. Chavez and Correa wisely backed off. They don't want war. They want PEACE. But for Bushite support (and billions of our tax dollars), Colombia is very isolated, and run by a psycho (as Rafael Correa called him), whose crimes are mounting up, as Colombia's courageous prosecutors pursue investigations of him and his murderous regime.
How will all this end? I dunno, for sure. One thing is certain, WAR PROFITEERS are hugely benefiting. That may be Rumsfeld's chief object--even before stealing the oil. South America is pretty solidly on its own path--toward self-determination, regional cooperation and social justice. Their development of their democratic institutions has been quite an awesome thing to behold. There is great strength in democracy. It means that people have something worthwhile to fight for--and, more than this, something worthwhile that they have created in common cause with most of their neighbors. Unlike Iraq, which is a viper's nest of tribal/religious warfare--where no one seems to be fighting for the right of ALL to live in peace and have a say in their government--the South Americans--except for the small, rich, fascist minority--have a positive goal for EVERYBODY. The poor want justice and fairness, and have gone about achieving them in a peaceful and methodical way that is fair to ALL, even to the rightwingers and fascists ever plotting to restore minority rule. There has been NO repression by the left of the right--absolutely none. The leftist governments have bent over backwards to be fair. Further, the path they are on is the best path possible for everybody--education and other bootstrapping of the vast poor majority, development of local infrastructure and self-sufficiency, many cooperative infrastructure and financial projects, and, on the horizon, a South American Common Market. And so, the vast majority of South Americans have something they can be very proud of, and something they will all defend. Brazil recently proposed creation of a South American defense force. It is against the Bushites' evil plotting that such a thing is probably necessary, and is now on many South Americans' minds.
Upshot: There may be more Bushite-instigated trouble and grief in the coming months--and they surely want Chavez's head on a pike as their parting shot at democracy everywhere--and also, they may well continue their war on South America after Bush/Cheney leave the White House (if they do--that is still an open question and nightmare). Rumsfeld has a lot of money and resources stolen from us with which to continue harrying these countries. But without "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America--that is, U.S. military intervention--he cannot seize the continent; he can only bother it, with little wars and instabilities that collective action by the South Americans can put to a stop. If we manage to elect Barack Obama--whom I am convinced will not go along with this crap--the main threat of war on South America will be removed, although U.S. economic exploitation and manipulations may not be over. Obama appears to be committed to peace and cooperation--and I would think above all with South America, a strongly democratic region. But he will nevertheless be president of the U.S., which is run by global corporate predators and war profiteers, and will continue to be for some time. Our political establishment's answer to economic trouble has always been to exploit others. I don't see that changing any time soon, even if we restore decent government here.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
