Wikileaks: Documents Confirm US Plans Against Venezuela

[subsuelo]

State Department documents published by Wikileaks evidence Washington's plans to "contain" Venezuela's influence in the region and increase efforts to provoke regime change

In a secret document authored by current Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Craig Kelly, and sent by the US Embassy in Santiago in June 2007 to the Secretary of State, CIA and Southern Command of the Pentagon, along with a series of other US embassies in the region, Kelly proposed "six main areas of action for the US government (USG) to limit Chavez's influence" and "reassert US leadership in the region".

Kelly, who played a primary role as "mediator" during last year's coup d'etat in Honduras against President Manuel Zelaya, classifies President Hugo Chavez as an "enemy" in his report. "Know the enemy: We have to better understand how Chavez thinks and what he intends...To effectively counter the threat he represents, we need to know better his objectives and how he intends to pursue them. This requires better intelligence in all of our countries". Further on in the memo, Kelly confesses that President Chavez is a "formidable foe", but, he adds, "he certainly can be taken".

...

Another suggestion made by Kelly in the secret cable, is a recommendation to increase US presence in the region and improve relations with Latin American military forces. "We should continue to strengthen ties to those military leaders in the region who share our concern over Chavez".

Kelly also proposed a "psychological operations" program against the Venezuelan government to exploit its vulnerabilities. "We also need to make sure that the truth about Chavez - his hollow vision, his empty promises, his dangerous international relationships, starting with Iran - gets out, always exercising careful judgment about where and how we take on Chavez directly/publicly".

...in (a) report summarizing a January 2008 meeting between Uribe and the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, Uribe is quoted as recommending military action against Venezuela.

"The best counter to Chavez, in Uribe's view, remains action - including use of the military".

Later in that same secret cable, Uribe urged Washington to "lead a public campaign against Venezuela...to counter Chavez..."

more: http://www.chavezcode.com/2010/12/wikileaks-documents-confirm-us-plans.html">Wikileaks: Documents Confirm US Plans Against Venezuela

[Judi Lynn]

1. Who knew Craig Kelly was going to order our foreign affairs on Latin America?

The terms he uses could make a maggot gag. "all of our countries." Really, Craig? "our countries?"

####ing ###hole.

http://cache.daylife.com.nyud.net:8090/imageserve/0aXf0Q8grH8Uu/610x.jpg

Assistant Secretary of State, Craig P.O.S. Kelly, with his homie, Roberto Micheletti, Honduras' illegal coup President.

http://www.littleleague.org.nyud.net:8090/Assets/old_assets/media/images/rice_patch.jpg

[Peace Patriot]

2. I'm particularly intrigued by "in all of OUR countries."

Whatever does he mean?

--

"Know the enemy: We have to better understand how Chavez thinks and what he intends...To effectively counter the threat he represents, we need to know better his objectives and how he intends to pursue them. This requires better intelligence in all of our countries"--U.S. cable (my emphasis)

--

Does he mean "all the Latin American countries in which the U.S. has diplomatic missions"? Possibly. (Could be just sloppy use of language.) Does he mean "all of the Latin American countries we OWN"? More probably, since the U.S. corporate/war profiteer establishment believes that Latin America is its own "back yard" and has vigorously and violently pursued the creation of U.S. client states in this current era (not just in the past), and basically owns countries such as Colombia, Honduras and Panama (and is currently working particularly hard to create enough mayhem and death, with the U.S. "war on drugs," to own Mexico).

A U.S. diplomat wouldn't likely refer to Venezuela or Bolivia as "our country." I'm guessing that he means the ones "we" own.

But what would it profit this horrible U.S. establishment to obtain "better intelligence" about Chavez in "our countries"? Very interesting question.

Could he mean collusion with fascist spying and death squad cells, say, in Colombia (like the group within the Colombian military that plotted to assassinate Chavez); or use of U.S. military bases and "forward operating locations" in Colombia for spying on Venezuela and Ecuador (lots of evidence for it, already); or use of the U.S. base in the Dutch Antilles, right off Venezuela's oil coast, for spying overflights (already occurring); or use of Uribe's illegal domestic spying project (probably aided by U.S. technical expertise) to spy on friends and allies of Chavez (i.e., academics, leftists in the legislature, trade union sympathizers, etc.) in Colombia; or use of fascist cells in Honduras to infiltrate and spy on its neighbor Nicaragua (lots of past history to that, and current motivation, since the original target of U.S. forces was the Sandanistas, now the elected government of Nicaragua and a Chavez ally)--or what?

"Better intelligence about Chavez in our countries."

It is patently obvious--and there is lots of evidence for--extensive U.S. secret ops--going well beyond mere spying, into dirty tricks, psyops, and destabilization and assassination projects--within countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, which do not "belong" to the U.S. Hell, the U.S. embassy was even using the Peace Corps to spy on Venezuelans and Cubans involved in social programs in Bolivia. Evo Morales threw the DEA, and the U.S. ambassador, out of Bolivia for colluding with white separatist rioters and murderers. Ecuador's president threw out the entire U.S. military base, as violating Ecuador's sovereignty. That base (run by Dyncorp) was likely involved in the U.S. bombing/raid on Ecuador's territory in early 2008. The U.S. "war on drugs" is used to spy on these countries. The U.S. military bases, the U.S. embassies, the DEA, the USAID, the Peace Corps and any "boots" the U.S. can keep on the ground, plus networks of rightwing thugs and greedbags (sometimes fronted by "students") who want the U.S. to put them back in power. This is what the U.S. has always done and what it is doing now, to the extent that it is able to, in countries that refuse to be "owned."

There is also some evidence that fascist forces are being coordinated across the region, probably by the CIA. And I have little doubt that the U.S. has extensive spying operations in countries that it has to be more careful about, such as Brazil, which has a very popular Workers Party government strongly allied with Venezuela and the Bolivarians, but that has cooperated more with U.S. corporate interests (although not totally--Brazil is not "owned" by the U.S.). I imagine that the frequent Chavez/da Silva meetings have been "monitored." I'm sure that Brazil's doings with Iran have been spied upon. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were all sorts of U.S. moles--spies, paid contacts--within the Brazilian government, the rightwing opposition and other entities ("civil society") gathering info on Chavez/da Silva relations (if not perpetrating dirty tricks to divide them), looking for dirt or trying to plant dirt to discredit, weaken and topple Brazil's leftist government, and so on.

This is what the U.S. has been doing for half a century in Latin America, and is doing even moreso now, given that there is no longer any Fifth Estate (journalistic) monitoring of, or disagreement, with such activities, and "Public Opinion" in the U.S. has been neutralized both by the corpo-fascist press and by all those shiny new, corporate-run electronic voting machines, run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, all over the U.S., in every state. The "military-industrial complex" and its secret government can run wild--and has, and is.

It's a major credit to the Latin Americans that it hasn't succeeded very much, in its nefarious schemes. Evo Morales said the other day that the leftist democracies are "3 for 1." The U.S. successfully toppled Honduran democracy, but Venezuela's, Bolivia's and Ecuador's remain standing.

i want to mention the "miracle laptop" (later, laptopS) allegedly seized from FARC leftist guerrilla camps on the Ecuador border and in Colombia, and very likely infused with false "evidence" by Donald Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans"-in-exile, or a similar entity. The "evidence" against Chavez and Correa (that they are "terrorist lovers") has been completely debunked, but these laptopS are still being used to hunt down, harass and/or arrest and prosecute leftists in other countries--accused of aiding the FARC, though they may merely be expressing political opinions. I seem to recall this has occurred in Panama and possibly in Costa Rica (both of which the U.S. would consider "our countries"). When this U.S. ambassador calls "for better intelligence in all of our countries," does he mean "better" cooked intelligence?

We must not forget how U.S. "intelligence" agencies and capabilities have been used. It is no longer accurate--if it ever was--to believe that the U.S. is merely "gathering" intelligence--that is, seeking objective information to guide its policies. It is CONTRIVING "intelligence" to fit pre-determined goals. The CIA may have fought back against this. That does not mean that the elements within the CIA who believe that their job is to prevent war, not manufacture it, won that battle. What more likely happened was a compromise. That is, if you can get the CIA on board for your war--as Cheney/Rumsfeld could not do, on Iraq and Iran--they will gladly manufacture "justifications" to "sell" it to the public.

I am very, VERY concerned that that is what is happening with the non-stop lies and disinformation about Chavez, which have continued in the Obama administration--the preliminary of creating a bogeyman with which to control public opinion for a war. The U.S./Bush Junta was obviously LOOKING FOR the way to entrap Chavez. They tried, with regard to the FARC, and failed. And they didn't just want "better intelligence" (reliable information) from "our countries." They wanted cooperation from "our countries" on starting a war--and got it from their tool Uribe (then found that even U.S. client states were falling out of their orbit, on the sovereignty issue). They found this out, also, later in 2008, with regard to Bolivia. The other countries in the region would not put up with it. They had achieved new unity on this, forged among the many new leftist presidents, of which Chavez had the been the first and an inspiration to them all. The U.S. wants to take him down, one way or another, primarily because of his influence away from U.S. clientelism and toward Latin American sovereignty and independence.

"...six main areas of action ... to limit Chavez's influence and reassert US leadership in the region."--from U.S. cables

It is no accident that Simon Bolivar is Chavez's hero. Bolivar dreamt of a "United States of South America"--to give Latin America the kind of collective clout that the U.S. achieved by becoming a unified entity of former colonies and territories turned into states with a lot of independent powers but pulling together on major goals. There was a delicate balance between sovereignty and sovereignty, in the creation of the "United States," that was of considerable concern to our Founders. And the states still have certain powers--for instance, to charter business corporations--that trump those of the federal government. But clearly the state of Virginia and the state of Massachusetts were the stronger for their alliance with each other and among all the states. (And a lot of people died over this principle--unity--in the Civil War.)

Latin America is now trending toward this kind of unity and collective clout--more following the EU model. The U.S. is DETERMINED to prevent this, one way or another.

And there is just too much evidence, too many incidents and too many rumblings of various kinds, on various fronts, in favor of a U.S. war plan, to ignore it. The situation here in the U.S. is that Obama can just be shoved aside if and when the multinational corporations and war profiteers who are really running things decide to do it. They have it all set up, propaganda-wise. They have a lot of war assets in place. But they have a lot of "divide and conquer" work to do first.

These cables lay out the plan for that "divide and conquer" campaign. It doesn't announce itself as a pre-war plan. But it might be anyway. Does the U.S. merely want to maneuver around Chavez, and stem his "influence" here and there, with this or that divisive or propaganda technique. Have they decided it's too risky to take him out? Or are they just biding their time?

Note: These cables have a date of June 2007, when another major move against Chavez was in preparation, to unfold later in the year with Uribe's treacherous request of Chavez to negotiate with the FARC for hostage releases, and ending with them very nearly trapping Venezuela and Ecuador into a war in March 2008, followed by the "miracle laptops" cooked intel. Hard to know if this particular diplomat was involved--Craig Kelly--but the U.S./Bushwhack ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield surely was. Kelly's memo seems like a general framework for the dirtier operations.

I don't know if CIA Director Panetta approves of the war plan. He seems to be pulling back from it. But a number of his moves--for instance, the peace accord between Colombia and Venezuela, and reopening of that volatile border--could be merely preparation. (It makes spying and infiltration easier, and Gulf of Tonkin-type "incidents" easier to cook up.) The new Diebold/Puke Congress has a large, loud, loony-toons faction, mostly anti-Castro Cubans out of Florida, itching for the U.S. to take down the three core Bolivarian countries--Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia. They've already had a meeting about it! The U.S. government is supporting these far rightwing groups in Miami with our tax dollars, but has also tried to "contain" them (to stop Miami from waging outright war on Cuba). What happens if these particularly rabid fascists gain the upper hand in U.S. foreign policy? And will they be installed into that position by the larger corporate/war profiteer forces that are after the oil and reconquest?

Very, VERY worrisome.