|
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?
|