I'm not sure I agree with Weisbrot that, in a choice between Washington and (leftist dominated) South America, Santos chose South America. I am not yet satisfied that Santos is not carrying out a CIA program in cozying up to Venezuela (despite Santos' obvious need for trade with Venezuela).
Santos' two year stint as Defense Minister during (Bush pet mafioso) Uribe's reign of terror, and Washington's HUGE investment of OUR tax dollars in buying a U.S. client state and Pentagon "forward operating location" (Colombia)--where murdering trade unionists and other leftists has been rewarded with bonuses in the military and land grants--including the best coca leaf farms, stolen from 5 million peasant farmers--argue against a simple Santos choice of South America for the good of Colombia.
Washington doesn't invest trillions ($7 BILLION+ in Colombia) in buying client states for our multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers, to let those clients just walk away or disobey orders. If they did, we would need to develop a thesis that all four wars that the U.S. has conducted recently--Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya--had only one purpose: war profiteering. But that's too simple--they have that purpose and others: "free trade" for the rich and the corporate, slave labor market, oil for our great war machine, plunder of other resources (water, land, gold, lithium, etc), more public services to privatize and public coffers to loot, etc., and, in the case of Colombia, control of the trillion dollar-plus cocaine revenue stream, as well as creating markets for ours and England/Europe's weapons manufacturers, and lucrative do-nothing federal war contracts of every kind.
So I think there is good reason to be suspicious of Santos' turnabout from Uribe's Bushlike war mongering against Venezuela, including this--Santos extraditing Makled to Venezuela for a real trial rather than to the U.S. for a show trial. Is this merely a new U.S. corporate/war profiteer strategy in Latin America--cuz they were getting nowhere and were losing ground with the Bushwhack strategy? It is kind of Hillary's thing to smear 'democracy' cosmetics over the rape and plunder of Latin American countries (Honduras, Haiti). Are we looking at U.S. State Dept/CIA cosmetics, with Santos? Or is that what we are mostly looking at, with some gestures (like Makled) thrown in, to sweeten the picture?
Santos defying Washington? Going his own way? Asserting Colombian sovereignty? Denying them a show trial? I will need more convincing that he is really doing this and that it is not a ploy in Langley's long term narrative.
Weisbrot makes quite a good argument for the thesis that the U.S. really wanted a show trial (Makled) to beat up on Chavez with--like that CIA caper out of Miami a couple of years ago, prior to another Venezuela election, with "Guido" and his "suitcase full of money," which ended up back in Miami in the hands of a Bushwhack U.S. attorney for whatever he could get from it, in Miami Hairball headlines (the "failing to register as a foreign agent" trial). Gawd what a farce! Eric Holder is as capable of show trials as Alberto Gonzales was (and has his own skeletons in the closet in Colombia). In fact, Holder just pulled off a show trial--the Posada Carilles trial. And, believe me, I do get what Weisbrot is saying about the U.S./corporate media propaganda machine prior to elections in Venezuela. Clinton might even be in a contest with Rice over who is the most clever propagandist and destroyer of democracy. But a clean Santos motive? I don't know. Maybe Clinton got overruled by Panetta, for some reason. Maybe State Dept. shit-fits about Makled (that Weisbrot might have gotten wind of) were part of the show. Maybe Clinton-Panetta were agreed about putting this "carrot" out there, to the leaders whom they are trying to "divide and conquer" (most especially Dilma Rousseff/Brazil), with Santos' help.
I smell deviousness. I don't trust Santos. I think he is the CIA/Panetta vetted and approved president of Colombia, with very important tasks to perform--the tasks of a "made man," such as covering up Uribe/Bush Jr's bloody trail in Colombia and the Bush Cartel/CIA/U.S. banksters' cocaine trail.
By the way, Weisbrot brings us the stunning information that
Colombia does NOT have an extradition treaty with the U.S. (but does with Venezuela). WTF? How did all those death squad witnesses (potential witnesses against Uribe, not to mention against the Bush Junta), that Uribe-Brownfield-Panetta-Holder whisked out of Colombia and "buried" in the U.S. federal prison system, GET EXTRADITED, if there was no mechanism for it? I read that twice and more. Has Weisbrot got it wrong? Were all those extraditions ILLEGAL, in addition to everything else?
Weisbrot is so incredibly knowledgeable about Latin America, and such a superb analyst, that I'll eat my hat if he got it wrong. Here's the paragraph. He's citing Santos himself:
--
"Now comes Washington, demanding that Colombia extradite one Walid Makled, an accused Venezuelan narco-trafficker arrested in Colombia, to the United States. No thank you, says President Santos – this guy goes to Venezuela. Santos cites Colombian law, stating that (1) Colombia has an extradition treaty with Venezuela, not with the United States; (2) Venezuela got their extradition request in first and (3) Makled is wanted for more serious crimes (including murder) in Venezuela than in the U.S. (drug trafficking). All of these are facts that legally require extradition of Makled to Venezuela." --from the OP
--
I repeat--WTF? How did the U.S. get all those death squad witnesses out of Colombia? Second question: Is THIS why they didn't extradite the spying witnesses against Uribe, recently, but instead arm-twisted Panama (another U.S. client state) to give them instant asylum?
The death squad extraditions were circa 2009. So both events--the extraditions to the U.S., the asylum in Panama--were Obama administration/Clinton State Dept/ Panetta CIA. One difference between them is that the extraditions were under (and involved) Uribe, when he was still in office. And (correct me if I'm wrong), the Panama asylum happened after Uribe was out, and under Santos (but no evidence that Santos was involved--we just don't know), or during the transition. But could this switch in tactics--for protecting Uribe (and Bush?) from prosecution by removing witnesses from Colombia--first by ILLEGAL extraditions, then later by arranging asylum--be related to the illegality of the first method? Bushwhacks would say "fuck legality" but Clinton is into cosmetics, and, if my suspicions about Santos are correct, so is he. Say his "made man" brief is to smear over all the murders and land thefts and utter criminality of the Uribe (Bush Junta) regime. He (unlike Uribe) would get picky about things like having NO extradition treaty with the U.S. Again, I'm thinking it's a ruse. (Whatever its advantages in trade with Venezuela, that's extra.)
One other possibility (other than Santos turning a corner and aligning Colombia with the leftist majority in South America for the "common good"): Makled knows too much about the cocaine trade and how that boffo revenue stream got redirected, under cover of the U.S. 'war on drugs," and what Uribe's role was, and who benefited. The State Dept/CIA didn't really want Makled here--couldn't take the chance, as to what he knows--and so this was a "sacrifice" they were willing to make, to add to the Santos gloss, give him some creds in the leftist majority's eyes, to further worm Colombia into their counsels, where he can do damage later.
One thing I know for sure: A prime goal of the U.S. State Dept. is to break up UNASUR (new, all South America, EU-type institution). Santos was already helpful (back under Uribe, when he was Defense Minister) in blockading or retarding South America's formation of a "common defense" within UNASUR (Brazil's proposal). So--like the rightwing billionaire who is now president of Chile, and who immediately scuttled the Chile/Bolivia sea access agreement, causing much friction, lawsuits to the International Court, etc.--Santos could be a mole for causing dissension. But to get there, he has to get Colombia out of the doghouse, where Uribe put it. He has to be seen as NOT-Uribe (not malevolent) and as having something to offer, as to south-south trade and other goals. This Makled thing could even have been designed for that purpose--with the U.S. never intending to put him on trial here--and, of course, feeling quite confident that, when he's tried in Venezuela, the corpo-fascist press will take dictation from the CIA as to how to twist news about this, in order to beat up on Chavez. In fact, it may be
better, propaganda-wise, to have whatever it is that Makled knows, that they may want to smear over, come out of a Venezuelan court rather than a U.S. court.
Colombia has been a very, very, VERY dirty business, that both the Clinton Democrats and the Bushwhack Republicans have been thickly involved in--up to their eyeballs in bloodshed, in war profiteering, and, I believe, in the cocaine trade. And we must not forget the utterly sickening puff pieces about Santos from the New York Slimes and other corpo-fascist propaganda sheets. He is not to be trusted.
I hate the "Cassandra" role that I feel compelled to play, on some very important things--because it's always bad news. I would like to believe that it's a "new day" for Colombians. But I would also like to believe that our Democratic Party leaders did not utterly betray us and U.S. democracy, in their agreement to the installation of private, corporate, 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines all over the U.S. I have to look at the facts. They did betray us, utterly. That is the truth. And hoping that Santos has somehow declared Colombia's independence from its masters in Washington flies in the face of too many facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some info that Weisbrot links to, re USAID (and McCain's U.S. taxpayer funded "International Republican Institute") meddling
in Brazil (circa 2005):
-----------
Google translation from the Portuguese:
----
22/07/2008- In 2005,
USAID, an American agency linked
the State Department spent
$ 95,000 to promote a
seminar on political reform in Brazil. The event
happened in the Brazilian Congress, had a local as
partner and foreign lecturers and Brazilians.
The goal, according to documents obtained by Freedom of
American information and passed to uniquely Sheet
by independent researcher Jeremy Bigwood, was to make the
seminar to coincide with the eve of the discussion on the topic
Brazilian legislature, and
a year before the re-election of Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva - as
a way to "expand the debate
Brazilian political reform. " Two points that seemed to worry the proponents North
Americans of the workshop were the profusion of small parties in
Brazil and party loyalty, and how it seemed to occur
more often in right than in left.
"While this
pattern of weak party discipline is found throughout the
political spectrum, is less frequent in the left-wing parties
progressive, as the Workers' Party, "said one of
documents."The maximum coverage of the press must be sought in order to educate both
the media policy on issues such as stimulating a national discussion," continues the text,
which bears the title "Brazil-Support for Activity to Promote Broad Public Discussion
on Political Reform "(Brazil-Support Activity to Promote Broad Public Discussion on Political Reform).
The program's success would be measured as six criteria, the report said, among them
the influence of national debate in the conference (including media coverage) "and"
'nationalization' of the conference, so this is not seen as the disseminator U.S. perspective. " This concern with local and non-American opinion is expressed in another passage,
it is urged that there is
contact with the legislative advisory via
Political Sector of the
U.S. Embassy in Brazil, "because of the sensitivity of the issue."The plan calls on all Brazilian political spectrum is included among the guest speakers
and is signed by the Consortium for Strengthening of political and electoral processes (Cepps,
its acronym in English), which combines
three American groups, nonprofit organization that
receives federal funds to help countries develop their democratic processes.
One group was
the International Republican Institute (IRI), based in Washington, who led the operation.
Created in 1983 by the then President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), is headed by Senator John McCain. The situation of the candidate to succeed George W. Bush holds any office in the institute since 1993,
today is the director of its board.
Since Bush took office, the IRI's annual budget doubled to the current $ 79 million. The money
comes
mainly from USAID and (NED) the National Endowment for Democracy (national fund for democracy,
linked to the U.S. Congress).
After setbacks and delays, IRI seminar put on foot. On days 9, 10 and August 11, 2005, Ramos Nereus
in the auditorium of the House, the event was held "Reform-Policy Challenges and Prospects
for Strengthening Brazilian Political Institutions".
The local partner was the
Center for the Study of the Americas* at Candido Mendes University,
Rio addition to IRI, the organization worked on the North American International Foundation
for Election Systems (IFES, the original acronym) and the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS).
On page of the House announcing the event, the text began with the phrase
"Political reform went instead to the legislative agenda. "
Nobody received the salary, and
travel expenses of foreign guests were paid by USAID.
Among them,
at least one name now linked to the McCain campaign.
Strictly speaking, the entity has not broken any U.S. law. Being an organization called 501 (c) (3),
name from the section of the Law of the U.S. Treasury that regulates it, it can operate anywhere
in the world that allows it to operate. That's what told Folha Hallake Marcello,
of law firm Thompson & Knight, based in New York and specializes in charitable organizations.
As for political activities, however, there are restrictions on what a 501 (c) (3) can not do.
One of the prohibitions is lobbying - the United States.
It is not the first controversy involving the IRI. The organization was accused of helping to strengthen
the groups that overthrew then-Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004 -
the organization denies the charges.
Two years earlier, in the coup that ousted him frustrated Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
for a few hours, IRI released a statement in which commemorated the victory of democracy
in that country. The institute later apologized.
"At last the entity's performance does not surprise me that the IRI in Brazil, " said Sarah Hamburger,
progressive Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington.
It was the last seminar of the kind institute in the country. The Brazilian political reform did not pass in Congress today.**http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/73786/eua-tentaram-influenciar-reforma-politica-do-brasil---------------------------
*(I wonder if this is the U.S. operative organization (the Center for the Study of the Americas) that brought Diebold voting machines into some provinces in Brazil. I don't know much more about this than that there ARE some Diebold machines in Brazil. Don't know how prevalent it is. Don't know what the controls are. Obviously, Diebold (now owned by ES&S, an even more evil corporation) doesn't have complete control of Brazil's voting system (yet), or Lula da Silva and his successor, Dilma Rousseff, could not have been elected. But it is a VERY worrisome trend. And I gotto wonder about this "Center" at Candido Mendes University, which worked on the "North American International Foundation
for Election Systems (IFES, the original acronym)."
**(I wonder if it was really the last U.S. seminar of this kind. Has Hillary Clinton managed to get this U.S. subversion re-started in Brazil? It wouldn't surprise me.)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
