The Militarization of Latin America: Obama Already ‘Ahead of Bush’: La Jornada, Mexico

One of the many under-reported stories in our nation’s media are U.S. plans to build a number of new military bases in Colombia and expand others around the region.

This article by Angel Guerra Cabrera from Mexico’s La Jornada reflects the views of a huge swath of Latin American opinion – and it’s anything but music to U.S. ears.

For La Jornada, Angel Guerra Cabrera writes in part:

“Over the past decade, in the United States as well as locally, the Right has suffered major political defeats in Latin America, which explains why the Washington elite have decided in favor of a policy of force in the region. They’re falling back on the only resource over which the U.S. retains overwhelming superiority, even if that means having to sacrifice the cosmetic image-laundering Barack Obama tested out at the Fifth Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain. That is what’s behind the resurrection of the U.S. Fourth Fleet, the decision to install military bases in Colombia, as well as the strange coup d’état in Honduras.

“When speaking of bases, we refer to the network of more or less permanent facilities that spread out from continental U.S. territory, through Puerto Rico, Central America, the Netherlands Antilles, Colombia – and even into Paraguay – executing electronic missions, satellite espionage, as well as the monitoring and refueling of military aircraft either for combat or the transport of rapid-reaction expeditionary forces. In sum, a network of more-or-less formal installations for the purpose of maintaining territorial control over Latin America and its natural resources and supporting the subversive activities of the CIA.”

The proven capacity of the region’s governments to deal with or act against imperial dictates, like the Yankee-Uribista [U.S.-Colombia] aggression against Ecuador or the attempted separatist coup d’état against Evo Morales, constitute a serious and unprecedented setback for U.S. hegemony in the region. This seems to have dragged the dominant groups in the U.S. to conclude that they’ve lost the political battle for the Latin American masses and are left with no solution but to back with force the (few) allied states they have left, or as a last resort, use its own forces.

By Angel Guerra Cabrera

Translated By Douglas Myles Rasmussen

September 11, 2009

Mexico – La Jornada – Original Article (Spanish)
Over the past decade, in the United States as well as locally, the Right has suffered major political defeats in Latin America, which explains why the Washington elite have decided in favor of a policy of force in the region. They’re falling back on the only resource over which the United States retains overwhelming superiority, even if that means they having to sacrifice the cosmetic image-laundering Barack Obama tested out at the Fifth Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain. That is what’s behind the resurrection of the U.S. Fourth Fleet, the decision to install military bases in Colombia, as well as the strange coup d’état in Honduras.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

18 Responses to “The Militarization of Latin America: Obama Already ‘Ahead of Bush’: La Jornada, Mexico”

1. DLS says:

   September 18, 2009 at 2:30 pm

   The main problem (other than the general leftist regional descent) remains Chavez.

   We know what the real problem is in the region.

   http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-15-voa60…
2. GreenDreams says:

   September 18, 2009 at 3:47 pm

   Oh please. Venezuela and the demon Chavez? Our politicians, and right wing commenters, love to bash Chavez and Venezuela. We act like they're a real problem. Really? Why then do we continue to import huge amounts of oil from there? Are there no capitalists left? If so, hint to capitalists. If you don't want to support something, how about not buying stuff from them? Oh, the oil companies won't LET you? What a joke you guys are.
3. DLS says:

   September 18, 2009 at 4:20 pm

   Baby Huey's bad behavior is not misidentified by some, at least.

   http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-18-voa21…

   http://www.mnweekly.ru/news/20090914/55388102.html

   http://www.times.spb.ru/index.php?action_id=2&s…

   http://www.examiner.com/x-21184-Homeland-Securi…
4. GreenDreams says:

   September 18, 2009 at 4:29 pm

   I'm not defending Chavez, DLS, I'm attacking YOUR side for continuing to support him. Sure is easy to cut funding for ACORN. Sure is impossible to cut funding for Chavez. So you get to rant and rave about the guy YOUR side keeps in money and in power. I'm not going to resort to your tactics of calling this stupid, childish or fascist. But seriously, how do you support spending billions on this guy while raving that he's Satan incarnate?
5. Leonidas says:

   September 18, 2009 at 4:34 pm

   Obama's mishandling of Honduras might make those bases more needed. He and Hiliary totally blew that one.
6. TheMagicalSkyFather says:

   September 18, 2009 at 4:54 pm

   Hey looky the first thing I can be really good and pissy with Obama about, wow that took a really long time. Everything else I could rationalize, this is just building to more bad colonialist policy in my opinion though.
7. GreenDreams says:

   September 18, 2009 at 6:20 pm

   You're clueless about Honduras, Leonidas. The coup has destroyed their economy. Only if November's elections restore democracy will things improve there. Obama hasn't “mishandled” it. There was no “handling” possible short of what? Military action? If you think getting on board with the coup would help, well, you're wrong. That's from business friends in Honduras. They were just fine under Zelaya, awaiting the election in which he was not a candidate, and scoff at the fiction that he EVER could have subverted their electoral process.
8. JeffersonDavis says:

   September 18, 2009 at 9:22 pm

   I actually agree with you on the “stop supporting Chavez” statement you made. And I agree about the handling of Honduras.
   However, given the timing, and with Chavez employing his influence funded by American money; we couldn't afford to allow Chavez to overtake another nation. He already was caught attempting that on his southern border.

   Right now, no new drilling is being approved. Therefore, we have to go to jerks like Chavez and King Saud for handouts. We are dependent, and thus, we are less secure for it. That's why I'm for “green” energy, but over a transition period. Not by jerking the carpet from underneath our economy like Obama is attempting.
9. Leonidas says:

   September 19, 2009 at 2:36 am

   You're clueless about Honduras, Leonidas. The coup has destroyed their economy.

   And the American Revolution didn't exactly help the colonies either at the time. Of course the actions of the US did not help one bit but made the situation worse. I also object to use of the word coup. Two branches of their government united to throw out a corrupt executive, and upheld their Constitution.
10. Don Quijote says:

    September 19, 2009 at 8:53 am

    Two branches of their government united to throw out a corrupt executive, and upheld their Constitution.

    When that happens, a bunch of lawyers and cops show up a your office around 10:00 AM with a stack of paper for you to sign, when all the paper work is done and you have been given a court date so that you can be tried for crimes against the constitution, they put you in the back of a Limousine and drive you home where you get to pick up a phone and hire a couple of good defense lawyers.

    I also object to use of the word coup.

    When a bunch of people in military uniforms break into your bedroom at 3:00 AM, roust you out of bed with guns pointed at you, drive you to the airport so they can fly you out of the country and will not let you back in. That's a coup…

    I hope you can see the subtle differences between the two scenarios being described…
11. Don Quijote says:

    September 19, 2009 at 9:23 am

    Right now, no new drilling is being approved.

    Energy Statistics > Oil > Consumption (most recent) by country

    # 1 United States: 20,680,000 bbl/day 2007

    Oil reserves in the United States

    Proven oil reserves in the United States are 21 billion barrels (3.3×10^9 m3), excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The U.S. Department of the Interior estimates the total volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable prospective resources in all areas of the United States, including the Federal Outer Continental Shelf, the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and the Bakken Formation, total 134 billion barrels (21.3×10^9 m3) of crude oil. This excludes oil shale reserves, as there is no significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States.

    So with a little back of the envelope calculation:

    ( 21 billion + 134 billion) / 20,680,000 / 365 = slightly more than 20 years of consumption…

    Drilling is not going to solve our problem, we only have twenty years worth of OIL left in the US, and most of it is in places that are hard to reach and very expensive to exploit…

    Drill here, drill now is one of the stupidest slogans the right ever came up with…
12. Don Quijote says:

    September 19, 2009 at 9:44 am

    The main problem (other than the general leftist regional descent) remains Chavez.

    I don't get the Right's problem with Chavez, he got elected twice fair and square, does not run death squads, has not committed Genocide and is perfectly willing to sell us his OIL.
13. Father_Time says:

    September 19, 2009 at 11:25 am

    Yeah, but I think he had thing about George W. Bush. Something about “the devil” if I recall.

    
14. Father_Time says:

    September 19, 2009 at 11:28 am

    Thanks for the data DQ.

    Very useful information indeed. Albeit disturbing.
15. DLS says:

    September 19, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    “Sure is impossible to cut funding for Chavez.”

    If you were trying to get back at me, you weren't successful. I wouldn't regret seeing Citgo shut down here any more than I regret we avoid doing business with Iran. And I can play even harder on a higher intellectual plane, as well: it takes two to tango, it's not just the USA the buyer at issue here, but him the seller, as well, and so why aren't you calling Chavez a hypocrite for selling oil to us, the hated convenient-scapegoat Yankee “imperialists” to help us maintain our fictitious “empire,” rather than selling it all to the poor, oppressed Cubans, Hondurans (if that country can be taken over by leftists), Bolivians, and other Latins, if not the Chinese and North Koreans, say? (And what does it say about anyone — so you had best be wary — who gloats that he sells us oil — and buys goodwill among the exploitable here with the heating oil gimmick — and uses the money to buy Russian arms and other goodies to help him make mischief elsewhere?)
16. DLS says:

    September 19, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    “I don't get the Right's problem with Chavez”

    He's too much of a lefty. Fortunately, ours failed in their effort to steal an election, in 2000. Not that the likes of ACORN haven't keep at it since then.
17. DLS says:

    September 19, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    “Right now, no new drilling is being approved.”

    It should be approved everywhere it makes sense. But we also should be mining coal and converting it to synthetic, purified (and less-polluting, thereby) liquid fuels for things like transport (synthetic gasoline and Diesel fuel, the latter which could be augmented by bio-diesel). We should also look into unused lands fit for agriculture that could be used to grow biomass (like switchgrass) for new alcohol fuels like butanol. (We want something with respectably high energy density.)

    [NOTE: Environmental extremists _hate_ "coal-to-liquids." Don't expect progress any time soon!]

    https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open…

    (First link, note reduction in _real_, not “greenhouse gas” [rolling eyes] emissions)

    http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal…

    http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/RxsY3908kaqwVPacX…

    http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/emerging_…

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/coaltoliquids_ctl/

    http://nabc.cals.cornell.edu/pubs/nabc_19/NABC1…

    http://www.butanol.com/
18. Don Quijote says:

    September 19, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    He's too much of a lefty. Fortunately, ours failed in their effort to steal an election, in 2000.

    Well let's take a look at the Chavez record:

    Venezuelan economy displaces Argentina as third largest

    When it comes to GDP per capita, Venezuela is likely to remain the top country in Latin America through the next five years, the fund predicts.

    Venezuela’s economy grew by 8.4% last year, but is starting to see a slowdown. This year it should expand by 5.8% and next year only by 3.5%, according to IMF forecasts.

    Catastrophic economic policies of the Venezuelan 'Opposition'
    

    The present so called 'Opposition' to Chavez are in fact the previous ruling groups in Venezuela. The reason they lost power is that they produced an economic disaster in Venezuela without comparison in any major country in Latin America – indeed with few parallels in any major country in the world.
    The fundamental features of this disaster may be seen in Figure 1, which shows the total growth in GDP per capita of the major Latin American countries between 1950 and 1998 – the year Chavez was elected. In this entire 48 year period GDP per capita in Venezuela rose by only 20 per cent – compared to 65 per cent in Peru, 78 per cent in Uruguay, 83 per cent in Argentina, 149 per cent in Colombia, 178 per cent in Chile, 185 per cent in Mexico, and 224 per cent in Brazil.

    The Chávez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators
    

    Among the highlights:
    ????
    The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.
    ????
    Most of this growth has been in the non-oil sector of the economy, and the private sector has grown faster than the public sector.
    ????
    During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and do not take into account increased access to health care or education.
    ????
    Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.
    ????
    Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in inequality.
    ????
    Real (inflation-adjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.
    ????
    From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than one-third. The number of primary care physicians in the public sector increased 12-fold from 1999-2007, providing health care to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.
    ????
    There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999-2000 to 2007-2008.
    ????
    The labor market also improved substantially over the last decade, with unemployment dropping from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. During the current expansion it has fallen by more than half. Other labor market indicators also show substantial gains.
    ????
    Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries has more than doubled.
    ????
    Over the decade, the government’s total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP.
    ????
    Inflation is about where it was 10 years ago, ending the year at 31.4 percent. However it has been falling over the last half year (as measured by three-month averages) and is likely to continue declining this year in the face of strong deflationary pressures worldwide.

    Now for the Bush record:

    U.S. Census Bureau: 2.6 Million More Americans Pushed Into Poverty in 2008

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Annual data released today by
    the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that almost 40 million Americans now live in
    poverty, the highest number since 1997. This is an increase of 2.6 million
    Americans in 2008. This news comes at a time when the country is
    experiencing the highest rate of unemployment in over 25 years.

    US Census Bureau Confirms Rising Poverty, Falling Incomes, and Growing Numbers of Uninsured
    

    In 2008, poverty reached 13.2% of the population, its highest level in 11 years, the result of millions losing jobs during the first year of the gravest economic crisis since the 1930s. For blacks, the figure was nearly double at 24.7%, and 31% of all Americans were impoverished for at least two months between 2004 and 2007, years of economic expansion.

    At yearend 2008, even by the Bureau's conservative measures, 39.8 million people were impoverished, the highest level since 1960, and 17.1 million lived in extreme poverty at below one-half the official threshold. In addition, for the first time since the 1930s, median household income failed to increase over a 10-year period from 1999 – 2008.

    Yeah, it's really a good thing that Bush stole that election in 2000, had he not done so, wages might have gone up, poverty rates might have gone down, the number of uninsured might have gone down, the World Trade Center would still be standing and we would not be in the process of losing two wars simultaneously.

    A little humility would be nice, especially when the party that you have supported for the last eight years has had such a disastrous track record.