|
Morales also has such a quiet, non-combative demeanor, that, if you don't know much about him, you may not realize that he has the strength of a Gandhi and an FDR, all wrapped up in one man. He is quite something.
The translator was a bit slurry--that's a hard job to do live--and there were a couple of points that Morales made that need highlighting. One is how the new leadership of Latin America--the leftist governments of Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador (all mentioned by Morales) and their allies (the leaders and governments of Uruguay, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and others, whom he didn't mention but who probably agree)--view President Obama, as part of a continuum of U.S. anti-democracy activity in Latin America. He mentioned four attempted coups against Latin American democracies with leftist governments, two of them instigated by the Bush Junta (Venezuela 2002, Bolivia 2008), and two with Obama in office (Honduras 2009, Ecuador 2010), with the U.S. clearly acting to support the coup in Honduras and likely involved in the one in Ecuador this year as well. Morales said "Obama beat us" in Honduras, but the score is "3 to 1." (Venezuela still has its elected government, as do Bolivia and Ecuador.)
"Obama beat us."
This comment, for one thing, helps us evaluate Obama. Is he secretly working for peace and justice, against great odds, as many (including yours truly) have hoped? Or is he just another multinational corporate/war profiteer collusive Democrat, with a lot of skill at conning people with vague, smarmy statements about "hope"?
Evo Morales would NOT have named Obama in this statement, if he had any hope left that Obama is for real, and is perhaps under siege. He would have said "The U.S. beat us," or "the Empire beat us." Morales certainly knows--they all know--what a very difficult position Obama would be in, if his initially stated goals for U.S./Latin American relations--"peace, respect and cooperation"--were for real. They would attempt to support him. They wouldn't say "Obama beat us" (in Honduras).
Morales' remarks also very clearly indicate an intention and strategy among this new Latin American leadership to defeat U.S. interference, bullying and anti-democratic activity in the region. Morales mentioned this specifically, in reference to his throwing the U.S./Bushwhack ambassador out of Bolivia in 2008, for the U.S. embassy's collusion with the white separatist rioters and murderers. He said that wherever the U.S. is present, democracy "is not guaranteed"--a rather mild statement considering what the U.S. was doing in Bolivia in 2008. But what happened next is the most important part: ALL South American countries--rallied by Chile's former president, Michele Batchelet, the first head of UNASUR--unanimously supported Morales, after he threw the U.S. ambassador out--and helped him quell the U.S.-instigated white separatist insurrection! She even got Colombia to vote for it! But she didn't have a lot of convincing to do, because most South American countries, and thus most members of UNASUR, have leftist governments. When they convened, in Chile, Batchelet took them on a tour of Chile's Pinochet Museum!
This counter-movement in Latin America to U.S. interference in the region has important new aspects to it, but the biggest one is COOPERATION among these new leaders--cooperation that likely includes intelligence sharing, that certainly includes coordinated political action (of which there have been many instances) and that also includes economic cooperation, with the new philosophy of "raising all boats" (especially notable in Lula da Silva, of Brazil, and Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, as a product of their close friendship and alliance).
The truly independent and truly democratic governments and leaders of Latin America have never been so united, so determined and so well-coordinated as to establishing Latin American sovereignty versus U.S. interference in what our multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers arrogantly consider their "back yard." They are thinking as "us." ("Obama beat us.") They are not thinking as individually threatened leaders, shaking in their boots at U.S. power, and anxious to sell their countries and their peoples out for safety from CIA assassination, and for the wrongful power and wealth that U.S. "made" status conveys.
This is a VERY big change in Latin America. It has the "powers" who control us in a lather to defeat this unity and to re-conquer the region. With a Puke U.S. Congress--thanks to ES&S/Diebold (and, believe me, the American people did NOT put these rats back in power)--who have Obama--whatever his real views are--shackled as thoroughly as any prisoner in Guantanamo Bay--may just decide to try to do it with Oil War II: South America. The U.S. could not commit a more horrifying and self-defeating act, but when did that ever stop the whackos who owe their allegiance to Exxon Mobil & co.?
One other thing to look for is U.S. "divide and conquer" activities. For instance, I think the U.S. is behind an action by the rightwing billionaire who is now president of Chile (Sebastian Pinera, of the miners' rescue fame) to rescind an agreement with Bolivia, that had been negotiated and signed by Michele Batchelet (prior president) to end a 100 year old dispute with Bolivia--a dispute that caused a war long ago--by granting Bolivia access to the Pacific with sovereign control over one small port. Batchelet's policy was designed to further bolster democracy in Bolivia--by materially aiding Morales' development projects. Pinera just invalidated it, to remove the sovereignty provision. This means that Bolivia will have Chilean and probably also U.S., intelligence, police and military personnel looking over its shoulder at its port facility. (Note: Morales also threw the DEA out of Bolivia, for its collusion with the rightwing white separatists. This way, the DEA may get back in, to conduct more of its nefarious activities, not the least of which is the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs.")
In any case, this peace move, and aid move, by Batchelet, has been turned around into, at the least, an irritant, and, at the worst, part of a plot against Morales. It is useful either way--to "divide and conquer" or for something worse. (It has also confirmed my suspicions about rightwing billionaire Pinera, who seemed like kind of a good guy during the miners' rescue, but who is NOT a good guy.)
Colombia was being used to create all sorts of trouble--including a threatened war--with Venezuela and Ecuador. That has apparently stopped with the new Santos regime in Colombia, but Colombia is SO in-the-pocket of the U.S., and has been so ravaged by U.S. policy and U.S. corporations, that more trouble could easily be instigated there. Honduras could be used--as it was in the Reagan era--as a footstool for U.S. aggression against its neighbor, Nicaragua--and Costa Rica is now no longer neutral (permitted big U.S. military maneuvers, recently, and has a dispute going with Nicaragua that could be used as an excuse for U.S. interference). Panama recently bent over for the CIA (long story, involving U.S. coddling and protection of Colombia's fascist ex-president Alvaro Uribe). And Mexico is being turned into Colombia (mass murder, social mayhem)--the true goal of the U.S. "war on drugs." U.S. "divide and conquer" activities, and worse, can be expected to originate from any of these "bought and paid for" U.S. client states. I mentioned the Chile/Bolivia agreement because it was so obviously part of a region-wide, collective policy of peace and cooperation, now attacked by a rightwinger, in such obvious obeisance to CIA strategy.
----
"Either capitalism will die, or Mother Earth will die." --Evo Morales
----
Personally, I wish he'd said "predatory capitalism," because I think that capitalism, in itself, is merely a useful economic mechanism for funding common good projects. It does not have to be the monster that it has become, nor will it kill Mother Earth if it is properly and strongly regulated by sovereign governments, on behalf of their people and their country. Further, almost all governments and peoples use this funding mechanism, including all of the leftist governments I've mentioned above and including Bolivia (which just signed a contract with Japan to provide R&D funds for Bolivia's big lithium reserves--an important element in electronics). A mixed capitalist/socialist economy is the best way to go, with a strong emphasis on social justice and an unshakeable commitment to truly sustainable, green policy. The "marketplace" does NOT have to be deadly. And it absolutely CAN be fair and a benefit to humanity. And I am quite sure that Evo Morales would agree. He is talking about the impact of predatory capitalism--as conducted by our U.S. multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers.
It is our job to try to get them back under the control of a sovereign people and a sovereign nation. We spawned them. They have used our labor, our resources, our infrastructure, our educational system, our tax money and our government to make themselves into unaccountable, transglobal entities floating like dark clouds over the world. They have shat upon us, royally. It's time we pulled their corporate charters and dismantled them, beginning with the far rightwing corporate-run 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines that they have foisted upon us, as their final control.
If we want to help Bolivia and these other countries keep their democracies, and continue their social, environmental and economic innovation--a pool of ideas that we should be closely studying--that's what we will do--first, get rid of the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, then fix this broken country, now the plaything of extremely dangerous and unaccountable powers.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
