The Militarization of Latin America
Archie
by Prof. Atilio Borón
The UNASUR summit in Bariloche, Argentina will have to face two grave
problems weighing heavily on Latin America: the military coup in
Honduras and the militarization of the region as a result of the
installation of not one but seven U.S. military bases in
Colombia.
In regards to the first problem, UNASUR ought to demand consistency
from Barack Obama with respect to his statements in support of a new
era of inter-American relations. As has been emphasized on numerous
occasions, the coup is a test balloon to check the reactions of the
peoples and governments of the region. And that it happened in
Honduras is precisely because that is the country most intensely
subjected to the ideological influence and political dominance of
Washington.
With OAS negotiations having failed, Washington has proceeded to
suspend the issuance of visas to Honduran citizens, a very lukewarm
measure but an indicator of the fact that it is taking note of the
prevailing political atmosphere in the region. But Obama ought to do
much more, and abandon the fallacious argument he expressed a several
days ago when he referred to the contradiction that critics of
imperialism enter into when they demand that the U.S. intervene in
Honduras. It is “ironic," Obama said on that occasion, “that the
people that were complaining about the U.S. interfering in Latin
America are now complaining that we are not interfering enough”.
We know that Obama is not very well informed about what his military
and civilian subordinates do, not to mention his intelligence
services. But he ought know, because it is so basic, that the U.S.
has been intervening in Honduras since 1903, the year in which for the
first time U.S. Marines landed in that country to protect North
American interests in a moment of political crisis. In 1907, on the
occasion of war between Honduras and Nicaragua, U.S. troops were
stationed for three months in the cities of Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto
Cortes, San Pedro Sula, Laguna, and Choloma. In 1911 and 1912 they
repeated the invasions, in the later case to prevent the expropriation
of a railroad in Puerto Cortes. In 1919, 1924, and 1925 imperialist
expeditionary forces again invaded Honduras, always with the same
pretext – protect the lives and property of North American citizens
residing in the country. But the largest invasion occurred in 1983
when, under the direction of a sinister figure, Ambassador John
Negroponte, the huge base of operations was established from which the
U.S. launched its reactionary offensive against the Sandinista
government and the Salvadoran Farabundo Marti guerrilla movement.
Obama can not ignore this nefarious history and ought to know that the
coup against Zelaya was only possible due to the acquiescence of his
government. What is being asked is that the U.S. stop its
intervention, that it withdraw its support for the coup government,
the only thing keeping it in power, and thereby facilitate the return
of Zelaya to Tegucigalpa. The White House has at its disposal many
economic and financial tools with which to discipline its ally. If it
does not do so it because it does not want to, and the governments and
peoples of Latin America will reach their own conclusions.
In relation to the second problem, the U.S. bases in Colombia, the
following must be said. First of all, the U.S. empire does not
maintain 872 bases and military missions spread across the length and
width of the planet so that its troops can experience the delights of
multiculturalism or breathe fresh air of life. It maintains them, at
enormous cost, Noam Chomsky has said on numerous opportunities,
because they are the principal instrument in a plan of global
domination comparable only to that which obsessed Adolf Hitler in the
1930s. To think that those troops and weapons systems are based in
Latin America for some reason other than to insure the territorial and
political control of a region that experts consider the richest on the
planet in terms of its natural resources – water, energy,
biodiversity, minerals, agriculture, etcetera – would be unforgivably
stupid. These bases are the front-line of a military aggression that
may or may not occur today or tomorrow, but will certainly occur when
the imperialists consider it convenient. For this reason, UNASUR
ought to forcefully reject their presence and demand the suspension of
the installation of these bases. And furthermore, it should make
clear that this is not an “internal matter” of Colombia – no one in
their right mind can invoke rights of national sovereignty to justify
the installation in their territory of troops and military equipment
which can only bring destruction and death to its neighbors. During
the 30 year that Hitler rearmed Germany, the U.S. and its allies
screamed to the high heavens, knowing that the next step would be war,
and they were right. Why should it be any different now?
Secondly, as long as Uribe is president of Colombia there will be no
solution to this problem. He knows, as does the entire world, that
the U.S. has been putting together a growing dossier in which he is
classified as a narcotrafficker and accomplice to the crimes of the
Colombian paramilitaries. In 2004, the National Security Archives
released a 1991 document in which the U.S. accused the then-Senator
Alvaro Uribe Velez of being one of Colombia’s principle
narcotraffickers, ranking him number 82, just behind Pablo Escobar
Gaviria, the head of the Medellin cartel, who ranked number 79. The
report, which can be read at http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/dia910923.pdf,
makes clear that the now president of Colombia “was dedicated to
collaboration with the Medellin cartel at high government levels.
Uribe was connected with a business involved in narcotics activities
in the U.S. His father was murdered in Colombia for his connection to
narcotics traffickers. Uribe has worked for the Medellin cartel and
is a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar Gaviria … (and) was one of
the politicians who, from the Senate, has attacked all forms of the
extradition treaty.” As a result, Uribe has no margin of freedom to
oppose any request coming from Washington. His role is to be the
empire’s Trojan Horse and he knows that if he opposes that ignominious
duty his fate will be no different than that of another Latin American
figure, also a president, Manuel Antonio Noriega, who having completed
the mission that the White House had set out for him was arrested in
1989 after a devastating U.S. invasion of Panama and was condemned to
40 years in prison for his connection with the Medellin cartel. When
Noriega ceased to be useful to the interests of the imperialists, he
quickly went from being president to a prisoner in a maximum security
cell in the United States. This is the mirror into which Uribe looks
day and night, and explains his permanent irritation, his lies, and
his desperation to be re-elected as president of Colombia, while at
the same time converting that nation into a U.S. protectorate and
himself into a sort of proconsul-for-life of the empire, at the ready
to caste a shadow over an entire continent so as to avoid the same
fate as his Panamanian counterpart.
Chom Noamsky
> Seven US military bases in Colombia
An article condemning the militarization of Latin America but not a
single mention about the multi-billion dollar arms build-up in Venezuela.
Neat how Archie is able to pretend the 800lb gorilla sitting next to him
doesn't exist.
Archie
I'm wondering whether you just respond without reading what you are
responding to. Did you read the article? And if so, did you understand
it?
Chavez has been spending less on arms than previous Venezuelan
governments. Colombia spends far more than Venezuela on arms. And as
the article suggests, Colombia's President is a criminal pig and the
mafioso USA govt has him by the balls the way they had Noriaga by the
balls (and Saddam). Uribe will do anything the Americans tell him to
do.
The Americans are predatorial and Venezuela has a lot of oil. As
Chomsky says, the American operate like the mafia and they do not
tolerate disobedience. And Chavez has the guts to stand up to them.
The right tried to remove him - perhaps the coup in 2002 is the
guerilla<sic> in the room, you dolt.
If I was Chavez, I'd be arming Venezuela to the teeth.
Chom Noamsky
You have some really simplistic thought patterns. If I criticize Chavez
you interpret that as siding with the US. If I criticize Zelaya you
interpret that as supporting violence and fascism and class elitism.
You're a real deep thinker.
Archie
>
> You have some really simplistic thought patterns. If I criticize Chavez
> you interpret that as siding with the US. If I criticize Zelaya you
> interpret that as supporting violence and fascism and class elitism.
>
social democrats, your type are a particular type. You post a lot of
conflicting messages. You are consistent only in your support for
capitalist elites. I suspect you are quite confused and suffer
cognitive dissonance (klunk will explain, in about five thousand
words, what that means).
In the 1930s Max Horkheimer who was the Director of Social Research in
Frankfurt and other social researchers conducted studies on political
beliefs in Germany at the time. Most of the working class in Germany
at the time identified themselves as social democrats in public
opinion polls. They put on a moderate public face. But when they were
studied more closely, they showed an entirely different set of
underlying beliefs and values. They showed personalities and beliefs
consistent with support for fascism.
I suspect that you are one of those.
A Nazi named Jaensch identified two pro fascist personality types.
One, as you would expect, was the strong, unambiguous authoritarian
type. And the other he described as confused, effete, vacillating and
uncertain. The latter, predisposed to support democracies.
The latter are weak cowards that sniff the winds to see which way
power is coming from. These weak and spineless cowards were the
functionaries that had nothing against Jews but put them in the ovens
to further their careers.
Although you change up your ID here every so often while keeping the
same name "Chom Noamsky" I have gathered enough information to believe
that you are that type of personality. Of course, I very well may be
wrong. To really nail this down I'd have to gather more information
about you.
The play on Noam Chomsky's name is also part of this rather confusing
muddle. People like Chomsky are, I expect, what you would detest the
most.
Chom Noamsky
That would make you a bald faced liar. Just a day or so ago I condemned
the kind of capitalism and government that led to the economic crisis we
are suffering. Why do you lie?
And your little theory about how I'm a moderate in public but a fascist
in private... that's just absolutely priceless! And you even threw
cognitive dissonance in there! It's like being psychoanalyzed by Mr.
Bean playing Freud.
Here's my psychoanalysis of Auwchie. I think you're suffering from a
serious affliction known as motivated reasoning. That's when people
seek out information that affirms what they already believe, rather than
rationally seek out information that may run contrary to what they
believe.
Put another way, you reject knowledge that goes against your beliefs
even if that information it factual and undeniable truth.
I notice motivated reasoning is quite a common psychological phenomena
on can.politics, especially in people like Lambourn, and yourself too.
Lambourn is the extreme case, not a single item of information is posted
by him that doesn't affirm what he thinks to be true.
Sad but true, people don't want facts and truth, they want affirmation
of belief.
Roy
>
> - Show quoted text -
==
Pretty good psychoanalysis of Arch...he performs somewhat like a
diode, where current can flow one way but not the other.
==
Archie
>
> Sad but true, people don't want facts and truth, they want affirmation
You mean the types that start with a pre set conclusion and in the
face of evidence - ignore the evidence as if it isn't there. Have you
seen any of those around here? LOL
Don't get defensive. I said I may very well be wrong about your
potential to accept fascism.
What stands out most, I think, is the maintenance of promoting social
democratic 'nordic' socialism and at the same time promoting laissez
faire capitalism. I've never seen one individual promote such starkly
different ideologies.
Notice in the past few weeks several rightists here in can politics
commented saying 'I though you were a socialist'.
That is the public face. But when things get hot your less obvious and
more subconscious nature comes out. And I gotta tell you - it ain't
pretty.
You are very good at popularity contests and gathering insecure morons
to slap your back - like a schoolyard bully. But principles? Forget
it.
You fit the bill in my opinion. I think you are the non authoritarian
personality type that fits fascism.
Chom Noamsky
Why do you put so much effort into labeling and pigeonholing people who
disagree with you? I think it's very clear you're not secure with what
you're promoting. You actually seem very insecure with your beliefs.
That would explain why you constantly go around attacking others for
theirs instead of promoting your yours. You've created an imaginary
pedestal of virtue for yourself, like some kind of fire breathin'
evangelist preaching hell and damnation. The difference is the typical
evangelist at least professes to have the authority of God behind him,
whereas Auwchie derives his authority from discredited pseudo-scientists
and quasi-intellectuals.
Archie
I'm fairly moderate actually.
I'm not about to feel a lot of pity for you regarding attacks. You
attack me and others frequently.