Would the nations of Latin America be better off replacing the Organization of American States with a new grouping that leaves out the U.S.? After the success of last week’s Group of Rio Summit - which the U.S. did not attend - in defusing a military-diplomatic crisis involving Colombia and a number of its neighbors, there are many people south of the United States that seem to think so. Ángel Guerra Cabrera for Mexico’s La Jornada writes in part, ‘Seemingly intractable antagonisms and ideological crisis can be overcome as long as they are addressed without the presence of the United States … Looking back at history, the OAS has never condemned a single Yankee misdeed against our America, nor has it defended any of our just causes.’ In terms of the attack against Ecuador by Colombia, Cabrera expresses the suspicions of many Latin Americans, when he writes, ‘the roots of the Ecuador incident, momentarily defused by the Rio Group, remain unchanged: the Colombian conflict, the fruit of a very unfair and devastating social and political reality which has been encouraged by “Plan Colombia,” is the nucleus of a feverish U.S. plot of subversion and military interference in South America, aimed at overthrowing the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, and closely related to the fierce onslaught against Cuba.’

By Ángel Guerra Cabrera

Translated By Fernando Uribe

March 13, 2008

Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)

The Group of Rio Summit’s resounding rejection of military aggression against Ecuador and the consequent defusing of the diplomatic crisis that it sparked, has once again forced Bush - who longed for fire in the Andes region - to experience the bitter taste of defeat WATCH . In this reversal, he had to swallow the clear and vibrant desire for unity, cooperation, and peace in Latin America and the Caribbean, which was so forcefully displayed at Santo Domingo’s capital, Quisqueya.

[Editor’s Note: The “Group of Rio” was founded in 1986, and includes nineteen Caribbean states: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. The 35-nation OAS (Organization of American States) has been the dominant regional decision-making body for many years. The earliest forerunner of the OAS first convened in Washington in 1890, and consisted of 18 nations].

The great lesson of the summit is the enormous capacity for dialogue and understanding that the governments of our region possess, with which seemingly intractable antagonisms and ideological crisis can be overcome as long as they are addressed without the presence of the United States.

The best evidence of this came days earlier at OAS headquarters in Washington. Due solely to Yankee pressure - even though for the first time all present clearly condemned all U.S.-inspired interventions, it was impossible to translate this into a collective statement.

On the other hand, despite the fact that Yankee pressure increased on the eve of the meeting in the Dominican Republic (as President Rafael Correa briefed several of his counterparts) U.S. intentions ended up crashing against a determined majority. So there was more than enough reason, in light of this experience, for Ecuador to assert the necessity of creating an organization of Latin American states without the Empire. Looking back at history, the OAS has never condemned a single Yankee misdeed against our America, nor has it defended any of our just causes.

The success of the Rio Summit was also made possible by other decisive factors. The most important was [Ecuadorian President] Correa’s unwavering defense of Ecuadorian sovereignty and demands for its violation to be condemned - and the unanimous disapproval of this ominous precedent. This included the resolute attitude of heavyweights like Brazil and Argentina not to accept under any circumstances, violations of the territorial integrity of another State, which left Uribe isolated.

The only positive attitude towards the Latin American peoples, once assured censorship of the summit to the armed attack against Ecuador, was not insist on the large differences in approach for the sake of opposing defuse the climate of war created.

The skilful and transparent conduct of the meeting by Dominican President Leonel Fernandez created the climate for the bright and balanced involvement of Hugo Chavez who took the lead, supported by [Nicaraguan President] Daniel Ortega and [Bolivian President] Evo Morales. This was the turning point that kept away the shadow of a fratricidal war and led to the unexpected conclusion. This singular attitude favored by the people of Latin America not only assured the summit’s censure of the armed attack against Ecuador, it made certain in the interests of not extending the warlike atmosphere, that little would be made of the vast differences in approach suggested by individual states.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing coverage of the United States from the Latin American press.

While people in this country and much of the world remain riveted by the U.S. election race, new trouble has been brewing between U.S.-backed Colombia and Venezuela. This comes as Condoleezza Rice leads a diplomatic mission to Colombia to push for a new free trade deal.According to this account from Argentine newspaper La Capital, President Chavez raised the stakes with his Colombian counterpart Alvaro Uribe on Saturday when he said, “I accuse the Government of Colombia of plotting a conspiracy, an act of war against Venezuela, on orders from the United States, to which we will be obliged to respond in a way that could ignite a war. … Uribe is a pawn of Washington … he is a coward, a liar, a troublemaker, and a manipulator … a man like this doesn’t merit being the president of anything, let alone a country.”

Translated By Paula van de Werken

January 26, 2008

Argentina - La Capital - Original Article (Spanish)

In a further escalation of tension between the two countries, the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, accused Colombia’s President, Alvaro Uribe, of “devising a belligerent provocation,” on orders from the United States, “that could ignite a war.”

“I accuse the Government of Columbia of plotting a conspiracy, an act of war against Venezuela, on orders from the United States, to which we will be obliged to respond in a way that could ignite a war,” said Chavez during a press conference alongside his colleague Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.

The press conference, held on the eve of the Sixth Summit Meeting of ALBA [Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America - Chavez’ answer to Free Trade Agreements with the U.S.], the Venezuelan leader stressed that it was no coincidence that three senior officials of the United States, including Condoleezza Rice, had been in Colombia during the past few days.

“I am warning the world that an act of military aggression against Venezuela is being prepared by the United States, to be launched from Columbia. It is part of Operation Balboa, which is what the operation against Venezuela is called,” he declared.

“We have intelligence information about the plan, our own as well as from other Latin American countries. Rice’s visit is not a casual one, nor is that of the so-called “Drug Czar” John Walters, nor that of the American military commander (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commander Admiral Michael Mullen,” Chavez said.

Chavez insisted that Columbia had become the “aircraft carrier” from which Washington is preparing its aggression against Venezuela and its Government. “Uribe is a pawn of Washington,” said the Venezuelan leader, as he did last Sunday when, during his program “Hello President,” he called his Colombian colleague, “a coward, a liar, a troublemaker, and a manipulator” and said that “a man like this doesn’t merit being the president of anything, let alone a country.”

He maintained that Uribe would go down on history as, “a pathetic peon of Imperial North America,” and he considered that recent “attacks” against the Venezuelan people and himself have originated in Columbia. “In recent days, the Colombian oligarchy has asked for reinforcements to attack,” he claimed last Sunday, referring to declarations by U.S. officials that questioned Venezuela’s role in the fight against drug-trafficking.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US

From Colombia at the heart of the war on drugs comes this interesting article between the conflict that is arising between Washington and Caracas…
Read the rest of this entry »

Since late last year, a bitter war of words has broken out between the United States and Argentina’s former first lady and first female president, Cristina Kirchner, over whether Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez helped fund her election campaign. According to this op-ed article from Argentina’s La Nacion, whatever the truth of these charges leveled by U.S. prosecutors, allowing U.S.-Argentine relations to deteriorate over the issue is not a wise course of action.

“The anti-U.S. bias that Argentina has historically shown and which is confirmed by the polls, has led the Kirchners [Nestor and Cristina Kirchner, the previous and present Presidents] to dangerously escalate a conflict that has no precedent in our constitutional government.”

By U.S. Correspondent Rosendo Fraga

Translated By Barbara Howe

January 13, 2008

Argentina - La Nacion - Home Page (Spanish)

Historian Eric Hobsbawm recalls that since 1865, the United States has had seven presidents that never finished their terms either due to death or other unforeseen events, and that such circumstances have brought significant changes to the direction of the country. But he also contends that the rails upon which power rests are so stable that no matter who drives the train, there is little risk of derailment.

It is from this premise that the Argentine government should discuss the conflict with the United States, following the trial that has begun in Miami in regard to the suitcase of Antonini Wilson. The effects of this crisis have the potential to wreak substantial changes, no matter who wins the U.S. elections in November.

History shows that the relationship between Argentina and the United States has never been easy, but Presidents Roca, Yrigoyen and Peron avoided direct confrontation with Washington. Presidents Justo and Frondizi sought closer ties, while maintaining a certain autonomy. And relations were difficult during the last military government, when Argentina broke the embargo on grain imposed on the Soviet Union for its intervention in Afghanistan, and strained again during the Malvinas War.

[Editor’s Note: The Malvinas Islands are called the Falkland Islands by the British. The author refers to the war that broke out between Britain and Argentina over possession of the islands in 1982 ].

With the restoration of democracy, bilateral relations were good, as happened under President Menem and Dela Rua, or slightly less good under Presidents Afonsin and Duhalde.

[President] Kirchner’s speech in front of President Bush at the Summit of the America’s at de Mar del Plata two years ago marked a turning point that President Christina Kirchner has now deepened.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US

Argentina has been doggedly pursuing an investigation linking Iranian officials at the highest levels to the 1994 bombing of a JCC in Buenos Aires. Iran is not happy about this, and has just threatened to lodge a complaint with the ICJ if Argentina doesn’t cease its investigation immediately. It is unclear what legal grounds Iran is relying on for its complaint.

(Sorry, I meant to post this earlier in the week. It’s about Argentina’s recent presidential election.)

Instead of government we had a stage
Instead of ideas, a prima donna’s rage
Instead of help we were given a crowd
She didn’t say much, but she said it loud

– from Evita

**********

Imagine if Laura were taking over for George. Or if Cherie had stepped in and nudged Gordon out of the way. Or… well, you get the point, I’m sure.

I just wonder if the Argentinians do.

**********

Yes, in Argentina, Kirchner will be taking over for Kirchner, Cristina for Nestor, the first lady for the sitting president:

Argentina’s current first lady, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, has secured victory in the country’s presidential election.

With ballots counted at almost all polling stations, Mrs Kirchner had an unassailable 44.9% lead.

Her nearest rival, former lawmaker Elisa Carrio, has admitted defeat, trailing on 23% of the vote.

Mrs Kirchner will succeed her husband Nestor Kirchner and become Argentina’s first elected female president.

All she needed to avoid a second round was at least 45 percent of the vote or 40 percent with a 10-point lead, and she met at least one of those thresholds. She will be sworn in next month.

For more on the election, see here. (For a Q&A, see here.)

**********

Now, to be fair, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is, it would seem, more than just a pretty face. She was involved in the Peronist Youth movement in the 1970s, has practised law, was a deputy in the Santa Cruz provincial legislature from 1989 to 1995, and has been elected to both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies at the national level. And, comparing herself to the current Democratic Party frontrunner, she said this in her defence: “Hillary was able to position herself nationally because her husband was president. She didn’t have a political career beforehand and that isn’t my case.”

In another way, however, she seems to be a combination of Eva Peron and Imelda Marcos. But — so what? If she’s fashionable and sexy, well, who cares? She certainly seems to be saying all the right things — which is to say, she does not seem to be yet another Argentinian authoritarian. (Well, maybe not.)

A profile is here.
Read the rest of this entry »