Continent-wide referendum urged over US bases in Colombia

[Judi Lynn]

Continent-wide referendum urged over US bases in Colombia
Thursday, 27 August 2009

Bolivian President Evo Morales proposed that South Americans vote in a continent-wide referendum on Colombia's plan to give the US military greater access to its military bases.


Mr Morales said he will take the proposal to tomorrow's meeting of the Union of South American Nations, or Unasur, which will discuss negotiations between Bogota and Washington to allow increased US military presence at seven Colombian bases through a 10-year lease agreement.

"If the Colombian president wants his bases to be used, I say I want a referendum in South America so the people of Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina - all 12 countries - can decide," said Mr Morales, who called the proposal a provocation by the US to create conflict and stall integration in the region.

The leftist governments in Venezuela and Ecuador also have criticised the pending deal, which the US says is necessary to help Colombia fight drug trafficking and leftist guerrillas.

Ecuador's national assembly passed a resolution on Tuesday saying the US use of Colombian military bases would undermine peace in the region.

More:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/continentwide-referendum-urged-over-us-bases-in-colombia-14469421.html

[Bacchus39]

1. no, its Colombia's call. what happened to respect for sovereignty?

this is dumb.

[Peace Patriot]

2. If China was putting military bases in Mexico, would it be Mexico's call? I think not.

It would, of course, TECHNICALLY be Mexico's call, but the security of the region would very likely be the prime thing on everyone else's minds, and rightfully so. That's what the UN, the OAS and the international rule of law are all about: collective security. And when one country acts belligerently and becomes a threat to other countries, it is the LEGITIMATE concern of everyone in the region and in the world. Tragically, the UN was no bar to US war on Iraq and the slaughter of 100,000 innocent people in one night of bombing alone, to steal their oil. We should be appalled at this, not crowing like Bushwhacks that US "sovereignty" was respected in the UN failure to maintain international order. People of good will, and believers in democracy, should be encouraging international action to curtail US militarism!

[amyrose2712]

3. or if Russia was putting nukes in Cuba?Hmmm.

[Judi Lynn]

4. A casual reference to history would reveal Russia's placement of missiles

was a response to the invasion at the Bay of Pigs.

The missiles were not removed until an agreement was secured that the U.S. would NEVER invade Cuba again, even though covert raids and attacks have continued into the present from Cuban "exile" groups.

For some reason that "detail" seems to get lost in conventional perception of history.

[Bacchus39]

5. the US isn't threatening to bomb Venezuela or nuke it

However, if Venezuela is so concerned or believes that war is imminent, then perhaps they should attack Colombia. I imagine Venezuela should be prepared to face any reprisals.

[Peace Patriot]

7. No, you don't threaten until you have your forces in place.

Once the US military is ensconced in military bases in Colombia, time enough for their "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to justify attacking Venezuela.

How many times in the last half century has the US attacked a country that not only didn't attack the US but didn't even--or couldn't even--provoke the US? Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Cuba, Nicaragua, and with proxy forces, El Salvador and Guatemala. Panama, Grenada. Iraq (after 12 years of sanctions, destruction of their air force and the place was crawling with UN weapons inspectors). And if you count colluding with fascists to topple democratic governments, assassinate legitimate leaders, and torture and kill many thousands of people, the number of US wars and aggressions multiplies to create a picture of blood-soaked US policy over many decades.

How many times has Venezuela--historically, or in the last decade with Chavez as president--committed any aggression against anybody? None, zero, zilch.

So whom should we trust on whether or not current US militarism is a threat to the peace of Latin America? The US or Venezuela?

And Venezuela's president is not the only Latin American leader who is gravely concerned about this dramatic escalation of US military activities in Latin America. Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, was the first to cry the alarm, a year ago. He said that the US reconstitution of the US 4th Fleet in the Caribbean (which has been mothballed since WW II) is a threat to Brazil's oil, and proposed that South America organize a "common defense." Rafael Correa, president of a country with its major oil region--like Venezuela--on Colombia's border, has said that they have intelligence that, "After Zelaya, I'm next." He has publicly stated that the US and fascist forces in three countries--Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador--have a coordinated civil war plan, in the oil/gas rich provinces in these countries, to secede from the national governments--a scenario we saw unfold in Bolivia last September. Bolivia's president, Evo Morales, is concerned about the US bases in Colombia and has asked for a UNASUR vote to condemn them. And there are no leaders more worried about fascist coups instigated by the US than Michele Batchelet, president of Chile, and Cristina Fernandez, president of Argentina. In fact, when the US embassy was funding/organizing fascist rioters and murderers in Bolivia, Batchelet took the members of UNASUR on a tour of Chile's Pinochet museum, to remind them of the consequences of such events, and to urge unanimous and strong action to back the Morales government--which UNASUR did.

The anger, fear and opposition to US militarism in Latin America is nearly universal. There is hardly a leader who hasn't spoke out strongly against it. It is a totally distorted focus--the focus of corpo/fascist press--to make this "all about Chavez." They have created a bogeyman Chavez whom they handily use to muffle many outspoken opinions from this region--against the US "war on drugs," against US military presence in their countries, against "free trade for the rich," against US/global corporate predator bullying, against the US war on Iraq, and for social justice, for Latin American control of Latin American resources, and for real democracy in which the poor and the brown are not marginalized.

Venezuela is not alone. Chavez is not alone. These leaders and many other leaders are his good friends and allies, and together they represent the general opinion in Latin America. It is Colombia and Uribe who are alone in inviting such an escalation of US militarism on Latin American soil. And it is a legitimate question, in Latin America and here--among us, who are paying for it--what is it for?

Did we not just slaughter hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq to steal their oil? Is that what this is for as well?

[Bacchus39]

8. I am not really for a military presence in Colombia either but your fears are unfounded

IMO, as are those of Hugo who again is just grandstanding. what motivation is there for the US to invade Ven?? they sell us oil. what else?? you've been predicting a war for years now. strange that its you and Chavez who are the only ones talking of war. Its not going to happen. Chavez just wants to attempt to destabilize Colombia. He doesn't want the competition.

[raccoon]

9. I don't doubt what you say, but where do you get your South American news?

I'd like to check it out myself. I notice many informative links posted in DU are links to UK publications. You can get better news from other countries than from the US so-called "news".

[Peace Patriot]

11. All I can say for the moment--because I'm very busy with something else--is MANY sources.

I get a lot of info from Judi Lynn's, magbana's, rabs' and others posts and their reffed urls in the Latin American Forum. That's a good place to start. and go to www.borev.net and search down the right side of the front page where you will find hundreds of web sites about Latin American issues listed and linked.

It is also useful to review corpo/fascist 'news' monopoly sites but with a LONG memory, a CRITICAL eye and ALL of your conscious faculties in play. It is not difficult to "read between the lines" once you understand that they are completely untrustworthy and always have an agenda of shilling for US global corporate predators and war profiteers. They give a lot away because they are so biased. Study their little journalistic tricks, and actually you can ferret out much of what is going on without ever going to a leftist web site.

My favorites are "His critics say...", "friend of Fidel Castro," and "increasingly authoritarian," with regard to Chavez. "His critics say that Chavez, the self-styled leftist president of Venezuela, a close friend of Fidel Castro, is increasingly authoritarian." These tags were used frequently in the first couple of years of the psyops/disinformation campaign against Chavez. Generally no "critics" were identified--no names, no quotes. Wanting to know who'd said "increasingly authoritarian", if anybody, I once tracked the "increasingly authoritarian" tag to a foaming-at-the mouth, fascist Catholic Cardinal in Venezuela, who had spent his entire career in the Vatican finance office, got involved in the Italian banking scandals of the 1980s, and was the only top finance official that the Vatican ever fired. He was the only person whom I could find who had actually used this phrase. He was insanely anti-Chavez and railed against him from the pulpit every Sunday after his retirement to Venezuela. So was AP getting its info from old fascist farts in the Catholic Church?

Anyway, read between the lines, and peer deeply into the black holes of disinformation, in our controlled 'news,' and seek out alternative information.

[Downwinder]

6. It would be interesting to see how much money was spent

campaigning for bases and where the money came from.

[Judi Lynn]

10. There's been a steady stream of Republican congresspeople coming and going from Colombia.

I've seen tons of photos of Reps. David Dreier, of California, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, of Florida, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc., etc., read articles describing speeches given in Colombia's national assembly by David Dreier and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, not to mention buckets of photos of US Defense Department officials all the way to Rumsfeld and the new guy staggering around in Colombia.

I'd bet the decision to go for many bases was already in place long ago in the Bush administration, and that they came up with this brainstroke as soon as they knew they were losing Ecuador's base, and Paraguay's.

They were deliberating whether or not doing Colombia, or Peru, or BOTH, last year or earlier. I'll just bet the multiple bases scheme was cooked up by Rumsfeld.

As far as some money attached to this plot, I read the other day FIVE BILLION DOLLARS will accompany the implementation of 7 additional locations.

Right now there are oil companies which could be involved in the lobbying, and American companies like Coca Cola, and mining companies based in the U.S., and many others. It's the cheap labor which fascinates them, and the fact they are not required to observe any serious safety standards, or polution concerns, or worry their pretty pasty heads about employee's protection as workers' health insurance, and there's the added benefit of having the death squads at their command to sweep any pesky union leaders off the face of the earth for them so they never have to worry about being pressured to raise the hideous pay level for the back-breaking work they require from their employees.

[roody]

12. How disgusting.

I wrote Obama and said I am sick of the US always being on the wrong side in Latin America.