EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Latin America Shakes Off the US Yoke
The current spat with Ecuador is symptomatic of Washington's failure to grasp that it no longer exercises regional hegemony
On Thursday, the United States expelled the ambassador from Ecuador, in retaliation for Wednesday's expulsion of the US ambassador from Ecuador. This now leaves the United States without ambassadorial relations in three South American countries – Bolivia and Venezuela being the other two – thus surpassing the Bush administration in its diplomatic problems in the region.
US Ambassador Heather Hodges was declared "persona non grata" and asked to leave Ecuador "as soon as possible", after a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks showed her saying some disparaging things about Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa. In the cable, she alleges that President Correa had knowledge of corruption by a former head of the national police.
Although the Bush administration intervened in the internal affairs of countries such as Bolivia and even Brazil, it was somewhat better at keeping its "eyes on the prize" and avoiding fights that would distract from its main goal. The prize, of course, is Venezuela – home to the largest oil reserves in the world, estimated by the US Geological Survey at 500bn barrels. Washington's goal there for the last decade has been regime change. The Bush team understood that the more they fought with other countries in the region, the less credible would be their public relations story that Venezuela was the problem.
It's nothing personal, really – Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez could have chosen to be the perfect diplomat and he would still be treated in much the same manner by the US government. And it's not the oil itself, since Venezuela still sells the US more than 1m barrels a day and there is a world market for oil, in any case. It's just that any country with that much oil is going to have regional influence; and Washington just doesn't want to deal with someone who has regional influence and doesn't line up with its own goals for the region – not if it can get rid of them. And they have come close to getting rid of Chávez, in the 2002 coup – so they are not giving up.
But Washington is losing ground there, too. A big blow was the change in Colombia's foreign policy last summer, when President Juan Manuel Santos took office. An important part of Washington's strategy in Venezuela is to maintain tension between Colombia and Venezuela. They have a head start on this project since the 2,000km border between the two countries has been plagued by paramilitary and guerrilla violence for decades. Conflict between Venezuela and Colombia is also important to Washington's electoral strategy in Venezuela. When there is trouble between the two countries, as in 2009, when Venezuela cut off bilateral trade in response to the US effort to expand its military presence in Colombia, it has a negative impact on a lot of Venezuelans in border states. This helps garner some anti-Chávez votes in border states, as in last year's congressional election in Venezuela. And accusations of Venezuelan support for the Farc guerrillas in Colombia – despite Washington's failure to offer any evidence – are a key element of bringing its anti-Venezuela efforts under the "war on terror" umbrella.
Although Colombia's previous president, Álvaro Uribe, was – in recent years – very much allied with the United States' strategy toward Venezuela, Santos immediately rejected it and decided to make peace with Chávez. This turned out to be quite easy to do, despite their past fights when Santos was Uribe's defence minister. As anyone who follows Venezuela knows, Chávez is friendly to any head of state or government that is friendly to Venezuela.
Santos's U-turn towards Venezuela is very interesting for several reasons. First, it shows how important regional economic integration is as a force for peace and stability in the area. The attempt by Washington and Santos's predecessor to expand the US military presence in Colombia led to a cutoff of $2.3bn of Colombia's exports to what had recently become their second most important trading partner, Venezuela. This was more than 11% of Colombia's exports, and the bulk of it was in livestock and textile products for which replacement markets were not so readily available. Venezuela also has very close relations with Brazil and most of the rest of South America, and they all felt the same way about Colombia's foreign policy. They were especially concerned about the US military expansion in Colombia – and even more opposed after US Air Force documents made it clear that this expansion was for "mobility operations … on the South American continent" and against the "constant threat" from "anti-US governments".
Santos was basically faced with a choice of continuing to do Washington's bidding or being part of South America. He chose South America. The key role of commerce here, as South America continues to integrate economically, illustrates some of the most important "gains from trade". These are far greater than the neoclassical "efficiency gains", often exaggerated by advocates of "free trade" agreements.
Also, Santos's choice to rejoin South America shows how geopolitical changes led by the left governments of the region have now encompassed even rightwing governments. This is a result of changes in institutions (foreign ministries, multilateral organisations such as Unasur, the Rio Group), ideas, and norms that have taken place over the last decade.
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, first, Colombia has an extradition treaty with Venezuela, not with the United States; second, Venezuela got their extradition request in first; and third, Makled is wanted for more serious crimes (including murder) in Venezuela than in the US (drug-trafficking). All of these are facts that legally require extradition of Makled to Venezuela.
This is most infuriating to Washington. To understand why this is so important to the state department, one has to look behind official pronouncements about Makled getting "a fair trial" in Venezuela and other nonsense repeated with charming innocence by the major media. Venezuela has a presidential election next year. For every important election or referendum in Venezuela – and there are many, but none more important to Washington than this one – there is an international media campaign, with the participation of the US government. (A recent WikiLeaks cable shows the Colombian government sharing with US officials its coordinated media campaign to link both Chávez and Correa to the Colombian Farc guerrillas.) Makled has already offered to sing about alleged corruption of Venezuelan officials, but only if he is extradited to the US. So, if they could only get him to Miami, they could have a splendid show trial that would be better than any international media campaign that the state department could organise.
If all that seems like it's not worth the trouble, it's exactly what happened in 2008. US authorities used a sketchy show trial of a Venezuelan slapped with dubious "failing to register as a foreign agent" charges – but not with actual espionage – in order to broadcast allegations of corruption at the "highest levels" of the Venezuelan government. The allegations made headlines throughout the hemisphere and, of course, were a mainstay of the Venezuelan opposition-dominated media. Just think what the Makled trial could do: no one would ask what the witnesses were offered for their testimony, or whether there was any corroborating evidence for their allegations. It would be one big free-for-all smear-fest, with reporters gobbling it all up.
But Santos is not co-operating, despite enormous pressure and, of course, the currently pending "free trade" agreement between the US and Colombia. Perhaps Washington wants this agreement more than he does.
In any case, the Obama administration – like its predecessor – is fighting a losing battle. President Obama's recent trip to Latin America was hardly more successful than those of Bush. He gets better press – no riots in the streets or Mayan leaders cleansing the site after his visit. But every president and foreign minister there can see that US policies haven't changed one bit.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
85 Comments so far
Show AllWhile this is an informative and interesting article, I do not think this is about a "Yoke" as much as it is about the U.S. (and other "free market capitalists) trying to constantly slice open the underbelly and suck the life out of people and nature.
The "budget" battle here (and in Europe), the increasing warmongering in the Middle East, and the un-ending attacks on ecologies internationally, are connected to the lack of typical viciousness which the U.S. is currently using in South America.
The chain-saw might jam up if it is in contact on all sides at once.
To imagine that a yoke has been removed is to court disaster.
Similarly to the "terminator" from the movie, the people of the South need to be hearing the words "We'll be back" and work hard to prepare.
Open-ness and clarity are the greatest ways to render the chain-saw ineffective.
We can only hope that the Empire implodes before getting back to ripping Latin America to shreds. Oh wait, that might be a bad thing for me. I guess I should go live in a basement room so I can shell out more money to the Pentagon, because those Latin Americans don't play nice with the US, and they'd farking better. We WILL be back.
I take you to mean the Pentagon the forced contribution, withholding taxes, protection racket scheme of; fund US, the Pentagon, for protection or else.......! Or else what, 9/11! The purpose of the Pentagon is to protect the worldwide assets of the WEALTHY PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS, many of which don't pay and/or under pay USG taxes while getting the benefit of OPT, other peoples taxes. Also their is the Corporate tax rate red herring, trumpeted by the MSM, that the US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. The real measure of taxation is the effective tax rate of corporations, the tax rate actually paid by corporations for their worldwide protection by the Pentagon, not the corporate tax rate which is rarely the case.Case in point is the recent revelation that G.E. gets paid by the USG to have its worldwide assets protected by the Pentagon. Having been a tax accountant, what and how G.E. does is legal, criminal but legal. GE and the corporations bribe congress to pass laws that results in the transfer of wealth from the productive labor sector on the economy to the non productive paper shufflers on Wall St. whom create fraudulent investor schemes knowing they will collapse although they will make money and if endangered of failure they will be bailed out by the USG, again using the productive economic benefits of labor transferring it to the bankster and fraudsters of the Wall St., Wash., D.C. axis of evil.
Birdbrain Alley,
Well said.
Well Mr. Weisbrot, this is good news and I hope you are right about Colombia coming around to acting in its best interests. The Monroe Doctrine is pretty much defunct - am I allowed to write that - and that is good. Lula da Silva and now Rosseff, Morales, and Chavez really don't give a damn about showing deference to the US, and that is good. The real sad story of the day is the situation in Honduras. Hopefully, there will not be too many more of these, and that the people of Honduras soon gain independence from the capitalist class.
I do appreciate your diligence and attention in Latin American reporting.
If Lula da Silva and now Rosseff really don't give a damn about showing deference to the US, perhaps you would care to explain Brazil's role in Haiti.
I fail to see the connection....
RBTL, estoy un gringo quien vivi en Mexico por tres anos en Buenavista de Cuellar. Es un communidad que es muy pequeno circa de Iguala en el estado de Guererro. No tuve dolares, pero vivi facilimente en pesos. Los gringos reciben informacion del sur ques es desinformacion. Tengo curiosidad, que area vives? I'm just curios. I miss living there. I live in South Korea now. It's interesting because when it rained the other day, all the children were told to stay indoors because of radioactivity. Again, there's a vast disconnect between news here and news there. I would love to hear how things are there now, it's been 10 years since I was last there which was ironically enough, on a 1 week trip that started on August 30, 2001. The trip turned out to be much longer, and I was thankful for it! Escucho la vida Mexicano todovia. Hasta luego.
Thank you for the amazing update and the link. I have bookmarked La Jornada now. It's amazing the murder that the federales get away with there. That was actually the first piece of advice I got when I first moved there, "If you have a problem, DON'T CALL THE POLICE!" I saw first hand what a dismal failure the war on drugs is. People were tired of it back when I was there, and I've heard reports of it escalating. If I'm slow to reply to your posts, it's only because I'm on the other side of the world, my day is your night, etc. So I don't often comment as I would have to stay up until the wee hours of the morning to get a timely comment in. I never thought to look up La Jornada on the net since I've left Mexico, I'm really happy to have it now. Thanks again,
Brian
The United States was born of Genocide and uses the same tactics today on a world scale that it used against American Indians, the establishment of military forts (bases) and the extraction of resources. The lives of those in the way are irrelevant. The alignment of Colombia with Venezuela and other South American Countries is an extreme blow to the American strategy. Next Honduras. Unlike the United States there actually is a free market of ideas in South America.
This question is mostly for readbetweenthe_lines who lives down there and has met many of the leaders, but anybody with an opinion is, as always, welcome.
In a posting I said Venezuela's Hugo Chavez's TV image looks like a junta head dictator. Here's hoping I can rehabilitate myself from being thought of as a gringo racist, which is half true. One of my hobbies is comparing real people with media images. I know little about the real Chavez -- I rather like that he backtalks the big bad USA. My point was, which I guess I made awkwardly, was that what he looks like makes it easy for him to be villified and portrayed as an evil dictator -- not just his race, his whole style. readbetweenthe_lines says he's OK, is down there and has met him, so I'd trust that.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the spooks and spies make another serious attempt to take out him out. The way it seems to work is that a grudge against a foreign country or individual percolates in the State Department or the CIA or wherever the unseen bureaucracy of the Secret Government is for years, sometimes decades. They keep a steady pressure on whoever happens to be in the executive branch until some event gives them a pretext and the impetus to "finally take decisive action" -- like they've been unfairly held back but now have their chance. Libya is, as we see, high on the grudge list.
Fidel Castro gets respect from me for successfully holding out against one of those grudges for half a century. JFK, in one of the dumbest moves of his brief presidency, got tricked or pressured (or both) into trying to get him at the Bay of Pigs, and all other efforts -- open or covert -- have come to naught.
Ever since, the US government had refused to "recognize" Cuba like it did to "Red China" for a long time, as if saying, "We don't like you so we'll just officially pretend you're not there." The only people hurt by this are Cuban people here and there who want to stay in touch with their families and maybe sell crops or send money. Castro suffered not at all and has now attained a ripe old age.
I've heard and read good things about Cuba, and I've also read accounts of dissent suppression and other human rights violations (as if those don't happen in countries who are US allies). I have no way to determine how many of the negative tales, if any, are true and how much is disinformation. I do enjoy seeing the might and majesty of the USA be consistently thwarted by what those deep in the Secret Government seem to think of as an upstart little dipshit island country.
Thoughts on Fidel Castro?
Castro has ruled Cuba for over 50 years (he still does unofficially), once he stepped down he ceded power to his brother. He is a dictator who hijacked the ideals of a revolution to maintain hold on power till the day he dies promoting a cult of personality and putting persons loyal to him at ALL posts in government. Theres plenty of information on the net, but if you really want to know about the death of the cuban revolution and its executioner you should travel to to Cuba and try to live as a cuban not as a tourist. Anyone who defends castro deserves my contempt and scorn, he is not a leftist just another power mad dictator who didnt hesitate to condemn millions of cubans to a life in poverty.
Well yes, Castro is a dictator and dictating seems like a family business in Cuba, but saying that the revolution is dead is not quite on the mark. Its aim was to put the dictator Batista out of business, dismantle his capitalist class and its US supporters, and raise the general population out of abject poverty. In all that, it was quite successful. The population is generally poor by first world standards, but the system's economic condition is spread over the entire population. Life under Batista really sucked for everyone but the ruling class and the merchants/professionals that kept it provisioned and serviced. Castro came from that professional class. The US has also happily and greatly helped in keeping the Cuban economy anemic.
Furthermore, although he probably is fed and clothed (sometimes) better than a Cuban prisoner of conscience, I expect that Bradley Manning is being treated with far worse abuse than the Cubans. My sense is that the Good Ol'e USofA is heading in the direction of Batista's Cuba rather than Castro's, dispute what they want one here in Beckstan and Republicanville to believe.
Humano, we isolated Cuba because we could. The once arch villain , China, is now a important trading partner, and of course, creditor. We have always suppoted dictators as long as they play the game. Our game.
No you won't.
Whatever man, you are just deluding yourself that castro is anything but a dictator that has managed to maintain power longer than anyone else in America.
What have you got against the freedom of expression, speech and assembly in Cuba? why do you suppport a 1 party state system? why do you support the lack of economic freedom and the "tarjeta de racionamiento"? why dont you come out clear and say "I dont believe in democracy"?, I guess for you all the cubans that have died while escaping cuba were "enemies of the revolution" and hence deserved to die?, there were more mafia whores than "red" jineteras?
Its very easy to support criminal policies that cause much suffering on those they are inflicted upon when said policies dont affect you uh? I suppose you have visited Cuba, but did you TRY to live like they do?. You give more credit to castro than he deserves and it is people like you who harm the advancement of true leftist ideals while defending dictators.
Maybe you could at least try to debate instead of merely making a tantrum over me having a different point of view and resorting to dismissing it because of your perception of it as "rightwing hatespeech". You are not a true leftist in my opinion for suporting a dictator, how do you like that?.
In the end, it all comes down to this: castro kidnapped and killed the revolution once he dies capitalism and the exiled will come back and transform cuba, or maybe you naively believe that the dictatorship will survive the dictator? once there are free elections (wich of course castro doesnt let happen because he fears the results) cubans will vote for anybody that he doesnt support.
Debate those? not gonna give you more time as I already asked you plenty of questions wich for the record you couldnt/wouldnt even attempt to answer instead chose the easy path of calling names, making assumptions and resorted to evade and hide.
Im not surprised as you have done it before when unable to use reason and logic but it is boring to try to exchange ideas/information with someone like you who doesnt respect other peoples opinions and whose "im the expert, I know it all" attitude is contemptible.
With all due respect,
Your posts seem to cry out the need to reread PRINCE Kropotkin and get your head straight!
You are so caught up in your "righteous" anger that you lose your head, and give your enemies (and mine, and all of the peoples) space to operate.
What would Kropotkin -son of aristocrat-enslavers make of your CONSTANT lashings-out at any and all who do not appear (on the internet, where one can appear as one wants to be) to be of your same linguistic (the divide between "whites" and "browns" on these continents is NOT ethnistic) background?
As a staunch Kropotkinist myself (if such a contradiction-in-terms may for a moment be admitted), I would remind you that we are ALL humans of equal worth and capability, and that the mistakes of previous societies are of a piece, while the new society shall reject ALL of them.
So. How does that square with your constant angry lashing out at those of us that do not have the "privilege" (in your apparent world-view) of being born the acknowledged victims of European-derived capitalist exploitation against native Americanos?
If you were a TRUE adherent of the wisdom of (once again) the hereditary PRINCE Kropotikin, you would see the flaw in this behaviour and correct it.
Do you?
-matti.
My first post was polite, this one will be less so.
Get ready.
You DARE proclaim yourself to be a follower of Kropotkin and then challenge an interlocutor based on BIRTH CERTIFICATES!!!
The Cuban people are part of the People- THAT is Kropotkin!
You want an address!?!?
MY address is PLANET EARTH, my "birth certificate" is THE HUMAN RACE!
Don't you DARE bring Kropotkin and the future of global human relations down into your den of bitterness!
You have NEITHER the right nor wit to do so.
-matti.
My third post to you is the response of reflection.
I have chosen to post all three separately in order to be as honest as possible.
You need to drop your supposed blood superiority in being upset by the crimes of the European Conquest of the Americas.
On the one hand, your obvious ignorance of European history leads you to assign a simplistic and false notion as to why MOST Europeans came hither, and what was the situation in Europe for them previously.
On the other hand, your silly stance as the one-and-only genuine native voice is mocked by the fact that it is almost impossible that you are actually 100% native. Meaning that for all with even a sundry education in psychology, from your rabid anger at the "gringos" (who of course, are all Euro-Americans, regardless of personal outlook or politics, i.e. a "racist" view) it becomes obvious that there must be a SPECIFIC "gringo" (translation Euro-centric Euro-American) from your own history that you are TRULY angry at.
Who ever this person is, I would advise you to forgive them (and then yourself for your ridiculous anger) before you further attempt to converse with strangers. Your anger and -obvious- self-hatred, make you a dreary conversant, at best.
Then maybe your obvious knowledge and intelligence will cease to be hindered as they currently are by your petty -and frankly- selfish personal upsets. In other words, your mother may care how you FEEL, we stranger-conversants only care WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
I wish you well.
I wish you to never again claim to be Kropotkinite until you have grown up a bit, and leaned to encompass ALL (even the "gringos"! *shocker*) into your conception of "us".
And I wish you to understand that until you mea culpa, you will be persona non grata to me and MANY others.
Enjoy,
-matti.
I give him credit for breaking away from what we have become; economic slaves.
The Cuban medical care evolved from being cut off too, and they used what works, instead of what makes money.
Yes some really smart professional people went to Miami once their property was seized. I can't agree with the state owning everything either!
That's informative and helpful, and I will say no more on the topic of Chavez's image. Thank you.
Castro is seen is some Latin American countries as a hero.
Another point one might make is that he stood on the side of morality, with the people of S. Africa. While the USA backed Apartheid, Cheney voted repeatedly to prop up the white racist government, Cuban troops went to fight with the people. For Freedom!
I would suggest you check Greg Palast and his interview with Chavez. AS for the MSM and the way it depicts Chavez, it may be made to look unflattering on purpose. As for Cuba and Castro, Cuba doesn't have the largest oil reserves in the world. Castro provides the USG with a already made bogeyman able to be resurrected on those slow news days.
The history of most countries in Latin America has been filled with harsh (to say the least) treatment of its peoples, mainly by thugs trained by the U.S. Anyone interested in details can find them in the writings of Eduardo Galleano, Latin America's answer to Howard Zinn.
The phrase does not mean that Galeano answered Zinn.
See there was change... Mayan spiritual leaders don't have to ritually clean their sites when Obama passes through -- unlike the cleansing they conducted at Iximche after the Texas Caligula dropped by for a smirk fest.
Otherwise, same old, same old from B.O.
We just released the terrorist bomber Louis Posada in El Paso, TX.
Jury Clears Cuban Exile of Charges That He Lied to U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/us/09posada.html
The Ex-CIA operative (terrorist) is most known for admitting to the NYTs that he bombed the Cuban plane with the soccer team on-board. Venezuela had him on trial but he escaped and ended up "sneaking" back into the U.S. looking for asylum. This was the only charge against him; now he is free.
Take note South American countries! Work for the U.S. and you have immunity to prosecution and cannot be held accountable. Work for the U.S. and you will be protected from all harm.
Like Kissinger, Rumsfeld and other mass murderers, he will probably get the Medal of Freedom
Actually, no, the United States can't get along very well without Venezuelan oil, and it's highly unlikely the United States can continue to survive economically on money borrowed from folks like the Chinese.
Nor is this just about Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Think Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina, which aren't exactly run by "clones of Castro" but are hardly interested in submitting to American hegemonic interests.
Kudos to Mr. Weisbrot for the only good news of the day.
Gringo is not a racist term, I use it to describe anyone born in the usa but those enlightened enough whom refuse to call themselves "americans".
The first mention of America as a continent dates from 1507, the USA declared its independence on 1776... the name distinguishing the continent was used for 269 years before the USA even existed!.
So to me those born in the usa who call themselves or their fellow citizens "americans" are guilty of cultural imperialism and I refuse to call them what they in their ignorance or custom chose to, instead I call them what they truly are: gringos.
Lol!
This is a good example of why the Left isn't taken seriously.
You do understand that "America" is in the name United States of America, right? I'll tell you what, when Canadians stop calling themselves "Canadians" and use "Americans" to describe themselves instead, then I'll give this pettiness some thought. Or Mexicans, for that matter. Either one. Perhaps, instead of "Mexican-American" people will start saying "American-American."
I figure such things get attention from the Left because it has largely given up and so squabbles over the tiniest of things. It's all so important because the stakes are so small.
We are all gringos here!
Unless your relatives crossed the land bridge 50 thousand years ago, you are a gringo on the American Continent. That's most of US!
You do realize that there are internationally recognized free and fair elections in the countries you mentioned, right?
If Chavez is a dictator, he's not very good at it. I mean, the constant attacks on him in the privately-owned media in Venezuela should have been the first thing a dictator got rid of. And this whole having elections business! Certainly a very bad policy for dictators. In fact, I can't think of one of them who held real elections. Heck, as pointed out in the article, Chavez's party didn't do so well last time around.
Worst. Dictator. Ever.
The term gringo is all inclusive and includes African Americans as well as whites.
As a mexican I can attest what bogi666 writes is correct, a gringo is anyone born in the usa from whatever race or ethnic background. The term is used because we take offense to gringos calling themselves "americans" as America is a continent and not a country.
Native americans might not be called gringos as they are truly natives from the continent of America altough I think its incorrect usage of the term and wouldnt call them "native americans", this because I could also call the indigenous people that are direct descendants of the original inhabitants of the continent from anywhere in it "native american" and it is not done, so in a way its a term commonly used to describe those descendant of the tribes in the usa part of north America and hence another intent to appropiate the name.
So if a "native american" insists on being called that and not "cherokee", "sioux" or whatever the specific name of his/her tribe is to me he/she would be be just another gringo.
"I doubt Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela constitute South America."
-- What a moronic and arrogant comment. And probably coming from someone who has never even stepped foot in any of these countries. I would love to watch you tell the people of these countries - face to face - that the new constitutions they democratically created and the countries they live in, work in, and love don't constitute SA. Who are YOU to tell these people, and by what right do you grant yourself, what should be a requirement to constitute SA? Your nationalist thinking is overbearingly arrogant and just plain wrong. But I'm guessing you are a chicken shit and can only say such moronic things while you hide behind your keyboard. Humanity is in desperate need of moving past the moronic nationalist type of thinking that you display in your comment.
Chaucer's phrase "The smylere with the knyf under the cloke" comes to mind when I contemplate the Amerikan Imperium's political pose of playing the benevolent Tio Norte to the nations and continents beyond its southern border.
Great article, especially with some measure of Good News.
The various latin countries that are now standing up to the US is a good sign indeed.
I had not been keeping up with news down there and did not realize Uribe was gone.
Santos refusing to extradite is beautiful!
An interesting note; I heard that the maquiladora revolution in Mexico, along the U.S. border spawned the working class gangs and the upper class gangs; and both of these teamed up against the older generation who they blame for the degrading conditions in Mexico.
All three are competing for the drug trade!
Are you a Fascist?
EVERYONE has the "right to opinions"!!!
They may be ignorant, they may be false, they may be odious, but ALL PEOPLE have the RIGHT to them!
Do you see why I get so angry when you claim adherence to Kropotkin?
This statement has the echo of a Lenin, not a Kropotkin.
Let go of your anger.
You think you are strangling IT, but it is strangling YOU!
-matti.
Actually this story came from upper class Mexicans on vacation in the U.S..
It was passed on to me by a Mexican family that grew up in El Paso and has family in Mexico. This is what their friend in Mexico told them.
I thought I would just pass it by you but; SORRY I ASKED!
~~~~~~
A simple NO would of answered my question.
I know I'm a gringo, what you don't seem to know is you are too! You are not native to the American Continent.
Santos hasn't been offered a big enough bribe yet.
It's curious to see some of the attitudes expressed in the comments in light of the history of the behavior of the US toward our neighbors to the south of us. Hugo looks like the figure of a banana republic dictator, Castro is the worst evil to ever reside upon the planet, etc. etc. It wasn't just the Monroe Doctrine, even before then it was "Manifest Destiny", and the competition between the British Empire and the Spanish Empire and their fleets of ships. The "rivalry" between northern europeans and the Spanish and their descendants in the western hemisphere has existed since the adventures of Columbus, and that conflict rooted in and supported by tribalism exists to this day. Castro as the ultimate "bad guy" (and he certainly has oppressed some portion of the Cuban people) but let's not consider what Cubans suffered at the hands of the US across its entire history leading up to his taking power, including his overthrowing a US installed dictator? Let's pretend that some nice democracy could have formed at the time in Cuba and that the US would not have managed to poison it with long practiced techniques just as they're trying to do in Venezuela? I'm no fan of Castro but I am certain that were it not for him and his version of politics Cuba would be just another Puerto Rico or Haiti today, impoverished and oppressed by the US (just like before Castro) instead of having universal education and some of the best medical care in the western hemisphere. Castro skillfully manipulated alliances to ensure that Cuba kept some sovereignty, and held the great hegemonic war power and installer of friendly regimes at bay, and that's the primary reason that "the US hates Cuba". If Castro were friendly to the US (like Mubarak was) we'd call him "President".
Now that something resembling true democracy is arising all over South America the time may be coming where Cuba could exist as a democracy, when everything between the US and Antarctica was firmly in the hands of the Monroe Doctrine that was not possible. Even recently we've seen a US-backed coup after a non-right wing non-US hegemony government arose down there, so the Monroe Doctrine still holds sway.
There may also be a political reason for Santos's change of policy:
The Green Party candidate, Antanas Mockus. came in second in the presidential election, forcing Santos into a runoff. In some polls he ran first - there was a very large shift of votes (?) at the last minute.
Apparently Santos decided he should mend some fences, and be seen to be more independent from the USA.
Have not read much about the US Presidential Task Force Report on Puerto Rico (A Latin American nation that is still under a sad colonial political status) in the alternative press.
The task force report is a huge disappointment and an insult to Puerto Ricans who were expecting the long awaited decolonzation plan (that follows international law and UN resolution 1514 & 1541) from Washington.
The report recommendations are imperial and paternalistics and serves as an excuse to perpetuate the subordinated relation of Puerto Rico to the United States, it includes the present limbo territorial status (self governing commonwealth status) as an option in a status referendum (The UN has declared that only Integration or Sovereignty are acceptable decolonizing options), does not recommend Puerto Ricans living abroad to have a say on the future of their very own nation and it does not recognize in any shape, way or form that the colonial relationship between the US and Puerto Rico is an international affair and not a US domestic issue. The report does not follow international law regarding decolonization, it does not follow the UN's decolonization committee resolutions on Puerto Rico (more than 25 resolutions since the early 1970's, the last one in 2010). At best, the Task Force Report treats Puerto Ricans like foreign workers in a 19th century caribbean plantation owned by the US.
See the Task Force Report hwww.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/iga/puerto-rico
UN Resolution on Puerto Rico, 2007 www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gacol3160.doc.htm
While I agree the title of the article is a worthwhile and needed goal for Latin America , it important to remember that one of the underlying reasons for the loosening of these chains is the US distraction in the Middle East.
Once the worlds bully feels it has all of the nations of the middle east firmly under its heel, it will turn its attention once more to Latin America.
There really no sating the appetite of this Empire and its Corporatism.
Excellent article.
Interesting that "free trade" with America is not desirable rather doing business locally benefits most the local parties.
The ruse of "free trade" is laid bear.
That's great!
Now, we in america need to de-colonize our own country from American corporations and the national security state. The current Tea Bagger trajectory will take us to banana republic status. And since O-Bummer man in the White House is so willing to sell out the New Deal, well, one cannot be hopeful.
Time is running short...
Weisbrot churnin' out the truth on S. America as usual.
Keep it up brother!
We need you -or rather what you show us that many others could show us- more than we know.
-matti.