Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSigning of Colombia Bases Deal Could Set the Stage for 'Expeditionary Warfare'
After several months of secrecy and controversy, on October 30th the US and Colombia signed an agreement to allow the United States military extensive access to seven Colombian bases, notwithstanding serious concerns about true intentions and eventual consequences of the deal.
Despite pledges by Colombian and U.S.
governments about the limitations of the agreement, the text of the
deal and U.S. military documents contradict such assurances. One of
the principal concerns
raised by regional governments
after news was leaked of the pending agreement had been the possibility
of the bases' use for aggressions against neighboring countries. In
an interview Sunday with the Colombian daily El Tiempo, U.S.
Ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield claimed that joint operations aren't planned outside
of Colombia, and that Article IV of the agreement expressly forbids
such operations. In fact, a careful review of the text of the agreement, finally made public on November 3, reveals
no such prohibition.
Not only that, but similar assurances by Colombian Defense Minister Gabriel Silva
that the agreement "has no geopolitical or strategic connotation,
other than being more effective in the fight against drug trafficking"
are even more hard to believe after reading a recently uncovered Pentagon budget document that expresses clear regional intentions for
the Palanquero air base. The document describes the U.S. presence in
Palanquero as an "opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations
throughout South America," and confirms the fears of Colombia's
neighbors when it discusses the possibility of using the base to confront
the "threat" of what it calls "anti-U.S. governments."
The most chilling phrase, however, is the discussion of the potential
use of Palanquero to "expand expeditionary warfare capability."
Perhaps in hope that the true scope of the deal wouldn't be discovered,
the Colombian government has pushed through the deal's signing without
the approval of the Colombian congress, claiming that as a mere bilateral
agreement no approval is required. This is despite the fact that Colombia's
State Council, a judicial body that advises the government on administrative
issues, found that the agreement is in fact a treaty and must
be reviewed by Congress. The Council also called the agreement "very
unbalanced for the country."
For Colombians who live near the bases, the deal is also worrisome, as the agreement lacks environmental protections. The U.S. has no obligation to remediate ecological damage, nor does the deal provide for damages claims on behalf of the Colombian government. The agreement states, for example, that bases will be turned over in "as is" condition upon termination of the agreement. Given the U.S. military's legacy of environmental damage around the world, this is a serious concern for the land and populations surrounding the bases.
Criticism of the deal signing has come from many corners. Presidential candidate and Senator Gustavo Petro urged the Colombian government to renounce the deal, calling it illegal without Congressional approval and pointing to the regional tensions it has fueled. Brazilian president Lula da Silva proposed a "non aggression pact" for UNASUR (Union of South American Countries) over concerns about the "gaps" in the deal that could allow U.S. military personnel based in Colombia to participate in attacks on neighboring countries. Twenty-seven European organizations signed a letter to President Obama just before the deal was signed, urging him to reconsider. On November 1st, several pacifist organizations from the U.S. and other countries protested at the Palanquero air base, raising a "no to US troops in Colombia" banner and comparing the plan to "a little School of the Americas in Colombia." The activists commemorated the 1998 massacre of 17 peasant farmers launched from the Palanquero base and carried out with the participation of pilots from a U.S. company under contract with Occidental Petroleum.
You too can support a change U.S. policy toward Colombia by urging your Representative to sign a Dear Colleague letter to Secretary Clinton. The letter, initiated by Representatives McGovern, Schakowsky, Payne and Honda, calls for reduced aid to Colombia's military and increased support for human rights and humanitarian efforts. Click here to take action.
23 Comments so far
Show Allwww.narconews.com should be a good resource on this topic, as well as the phony U.S.-made drug war in So. American; and, of course, worldwide.
The US must be getting nervous about getting booted out of the mid-east and needs a back-up plan just in case.
War; coming soon to a "theater" near you. And don't forget to bring the kids!
Hey, dummies: You still think that your letters about human rights to politicians have any effect? You. Are. Dummies.
Why the WOD.
The US Congress have introduced a number of bills to declare Venezuala "A State Sposnor of Terrorism".
Under the Congresses authorization for the Use of force Given president GW Bush to invade Afghanistan, Iraq and to attack nations like Somalia, the Sudan , Yemen, Pakistan and others, this would be a green light to use Military force against Venezuala.
Yet newspers claim it Chavez increasing tensions by moving troops to the Columbian border.
The United States of America is a rogue nation. It the most dangerous and untrustworthy nation on the face of the planet.
US Military personal are not doing "Honorable service" They are dupes, used as the muscle for the Corporations of the USA.
More
"Change We Can Believe In"
(if we are suckers)
from Obama?
Hugo Chavez, probably the best political leader in the Hemisphere, Evo Morales, and other progressive South American leaders - all of whom are leftists intent on getting their people out from under the crushing domination of corporate interests - understand clearly that they are in the crosshairs of the US military now based in Columbia.
US Marine general Smedley Butler's little book, "War is a Racket" should be required reading in every high school in the country. Butler, on reviewing his life and military career, saw clearly that he had been a hit man for US corporations.
PURPOSE OF THIS WORLD
Greed is caused by people thinking they deserve more, which gives them a guilt free conscience as they take all they can take. Purpose of this world being to prove the harm in it, most feeling they deserve more being the root cause of all evil.
So when will things turn toward the good? Just after things could not get any worse, in about six seconds.
The so called war on drugs in Columbia is really a war alright but not for the eradication of drugs, but for who controls the billion $ illegal, drug industry. The FARC uses their drug $ to support their army, just like the CIA uses their drug $ to support their people as this eliminates any Congressional accountability for these $ as there no records of these nefarious and corrupt funds. The FARC would be considered good thugs if they could be bought off by our government!
NATIVETONGUEREDUX: My Brother spent time in Columbia and what you posted is right on!
Here's more from the Pentagon Budge document referred to in the article, in case citizens of Venezuela, Ecuador, etc. thought they were secure (see page 220):
"A presence will also increase our capability to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach, support ... and expand expeditionary warfare capability."
And then there's this:
"This facility can be used by other components on an 'as available' basis ... Palanquero will provide joint use capability to U.S. Army, Air Force, Marine, and U. S. Interagency aircraft and personnel in addition to building partner capacity of the Columbian forces."
That's an awful lot of force just to try to suppress drug trafficking.
Finally, I wonder if the use of the term "mitigating" in the following is a mistake or a Freudian slip:
"The strong security cooperation relationship also offers an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America to include mitigating the Counternarcotics capability.
Why can't we mitigate counter-cannibis capability within the U.S.?
within the next decade, we can expect the United States Congress to authorize 'the use of military force in the name of National Security' to occupy the 'rogue' 'terrorist-harboring' states of Colombia and Brazil. before invading Brazil, the American Secretary of State will voice 'grave concern' and 'harsh warnings' given the 'evil nature' of the Brazilian regime, that now controls one of the largest oil reserves on the planet, having cut ties with the World Bank and IMF, while boasting the hottest, non-obese population in the hemisphere. I can't imagine a greater threat to American interests than the exclusion of our gluttonous rapacious corporations
Wow, I hadn't even considered Brazil. Both Venezuela and Brazil are conveniently located right next door to Colombia. I've always assumend that Venezuela was the next oil-rich country needing implementation of democracy through U.S. invasion. Geez. "We" can kill two birds with one stone there.
"having cut ties with the World Bank and IMF"
How dare they? The WB and the IMF, of course, have been the main causes of increasing poverty and environmental damage in South America. RE: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. Why don't these darn brown folks in other countries just finally realize that they have been selected to live short lives in environmental filth and crushing poverty so we can continue to drive our gas-guzzling SUV's one mile to the yogurt stand? I mean, they have a MISSION. You know?
On a different note, if you thought the U.S. nuclear arsenal was well cared for, take a look at page 208 of the Pentagon Budget document referred to in the articel. This section regards Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming, which "operates 150 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic [nuclear] missiles on full alert and maintains the missile fields across a 12,600-square-mile area in three states (Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado)." Several of the facilities "remain housed within historic facilities originally built as US Army cavalry stables in 1909 ... electrical overloads cause frequent circuit failure. The lack of fire suppression systems, alarm pulls stations, fire barriers and the use of non-fire rated materials has resulted in fire safety deficiencies ... The 40-year-old, dilapidated PLTP is physically separated from the MSC facility causing additional operational inefficiencies ..."
not far from me, Weld County Colorado is a cancer cluster along with it's democracy-protecting, decrepit missile silos
The Pentagon budget document to which Ms. Birss refers also includes the following concerning the Palanquero airbase (see page 219; emphasis added):
"Development of this [Cooperative Security Location] provides a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, ANTI-US GOVERNMENTS, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters.
...
The intent is to ... improve the U.S. ability to respond rapidly to crisis, and ASSURE REGIONAL ACCESS AND PRESENCE at minimum cost. Palanquero supports the mobility mission by providing ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE SOUTH AMERICAN CONTINENT with the exception of the Cape Horn region if fuel is available, and over half of the continent unrefueled."
Fabulous. Total Spectrum Dominance comes to the Western Hemisphere. Isn't there enough to do at home before we start screwing over South America again?
This piece serves as another reminder that not only are there an infinite number of degrees of evil, but that it can always get worse, at least until we are all dead, and the US government always seems to come through to make it worse. This is almost enough to make me supportive of sending the maximum number of troops to Afghanistan. If they are not sent to Afghanistan, it looks like they will probably be sent somewhere else where they would do even more damage. And the Afghanistan operation, along with the Iraq operation, does appear to be doing a bang-up job in bankrupting the empire.
Kivals, I'm no guru at foreign policy but if I understand what you are saying, we should send the troops to Afghanistan because anywhere you send them they'll do damage? Why not just bring them home and let's build local jobs for healing the minds of these soldiers for at least a few years? While we're at it, let's go local on food and medicine and try to feed them non-processed junk foods and drugs. Marijuana is a good example of healing. I understand that Afghanistan is where any empire comes to an end but at what cost? Why not just allow the sweetheart civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq to heal and bring our own troops home and pull them out of the militaristic mentality and give them hope and will to strive for something better to work on for a change? I would love to see this empire be reined in to but I fear that Iraq and Afghanistan will be dragged into it the way we're doing it. I thought bringing the troops home and closing all those military bases alone would whittle down the empire without hurting any other nation.
Of course I would want all the troops to come home and for the empire to wind down. Virtually everyone who comes frequently to CD would wish that. However, given that the MIC fiends who, together with their fellow predators on Wall Street, run this country, I have little hope of that happening. So I was saying that if the fiends are determined to send troops abroad to murder innocent foreigners to steal their resources, they would probably do less damage if they continue their current policies in Afhanistan, and they may very well bankrupt the empire, rather than pulling out of that region and starting some new war in South America with the aid of the fascist Colombian government.