Panetta Down South: The Pentagon’s New Plan to Confront Latin America’s Pink Tide
October 19-21, 2012
Panetta Down South
The Pentagons New Plan to Confront Latin Americas Pink Tide
by NICK ALEXANDROV
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was in Uruguay recently, where he spoke of the need to strengthen the southern hemispheres police forces. This proposed policy has a precedent, almost unknown in this country, but potentially indicative of what awaits Latin American governments willing to cooperate with their northern neighbors defense establishment. In the 1960s, Washington initiated a decade-long training program for Uruguays police, helping transform them from a weak, underfunded force into an efficient instrument of repression. The metamorphosis coincided with Uruguays descent from democracy to dictatorship, as the Switzerland of Latin America became, by the time the U.S. had finished its work, the worlds leader in political prisoners per capita.
Panetta delivered his remarks at Punta del Este, where the Alliance for Progress was launched in 1961. Aimed at raising income levels and promoting land reform in Latin America, President Kennedys program reflected his agenda accuratelyto about the same extent Obamas handshake with Chávez heralded a friendly turn in U.S.-Latin American relations. Down here on Earth, Obama ensured the current Honduran regime stole the last election successfully. In the frauds aftermath, death squads roam the country, murdering human rights lawyers and activists. The Kennedy administration, for its part, oversaw the write-up of a development plan for Uruguay within the Alliance framework, which was effectively discarded upon completion. None of its recommendations were ever carried out, since other matters took priority. In 1962, Kennedy created the Office of Public Safety (OPS), supervised loosely by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and responsible for Uruguays Public Safety Program (PSP) from 1964-1974.
The PSP was a training program for Uruguays police, who received instruction both in the U.S. and their home country, part of the general effort to combat rising urban terrorism and crime. Or at least that was the authorized rationale. U.S. government documents, meanwhile, tell a different story. Half a year after the program began, for example, USAID officials in Montevideo explained that Uruguay has enjoyed a relatively peaceful state of security for many years, and that [n]o active threat of insurgency exists. In the 2012 version of this story, Panetta offers drug traffickers and insurgents as the twin dangers necessitating revamped police squads. But if the past is any guide, these claims should be met with extreme skepticism.
The Tupamaros, a left-wing political group, are often considered the main target of the PSP. They spent their first few years organizing, and raiding banks and weapons caches for funds and guns. They next started kidnapping top officials, beginning with the head of the state telephone companywho was also President Jorge Pacheco Arecos close friend and adviserin August 1968. But the guerrillas took their hostage only after Pacheco cracked down on left-wing periodicals and political parties, declaring a state of emergency that allowed the government to make use of its special powers at will. The fact that Uruguays democracy was unraveling had been pointed out by a number of observers several years before. One of these noted in 1965 that, while a pair of political parties have dominated the Uruguayan scene for over 100 years, they were effectively identical, characterized by little difference of policy. These parties shared aims did not include taking action to remedy the continuing industrial recession, rising unemployment
and a spiraling cost of living underway at the time. The radical implications of this analysiswhich was the CIAsare obvious: to improve Uruguayan lives, actions had to be taken outside the established political channels, given that the two major parties were doing nothing, and in fact promoting, the deepening austerity. The Tupamaros, of course, agreed with the CIA on this point, but these groups diverged in their visions for the future. While the rebels wished to see conditions improve within the context of a better social order, Washington wanted to prevent Uruguayans from even protesting the continuing industrial recession through which they suffered.
More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/19/the-pentagons-new-plan-to-confront-latin-americas-pink-tide/
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Counterpunch writers have a way of hyping stories.
NickA327
(3 posts)Hi Kolesar,
That's a reasonable question. I wrote the CounterPunch piece on Panetta, and you can find a Defense Department article reviewing Panetta's remarks here: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118136. The Western Hemisphere Defense Policy Statement, which gives a fuller sense of the planned policies, can be read here: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118118. (There's a pdf link for the full document at the bottom of the page.)
My point with this piece was to show that the U.S. has trained police forces before, with ugly results-- that's why I spent the bulk of the article looking at the history of the police training program for Uruguay in the '60s-'70s. When Panetta spoke in Punta del Este, he emphasized the fact that Latin American countries should start using the police, rather than the military, to combat drug traffickers and insurgents; back in the '60s, the ostensible targets were urban terrorists and insurgents, but government documents show that U.S. officials were overwhelmingly concerned with striking workers, student demonstrators, and the like. There's no way to know the extent to which these new policies will be implemented, as I explained in my article. But if history is any guide, the results will be brutal if the plans are carried out. If you didn't find my account-- which I tried to keep succinct, for better or worse-- persuasive, then I'd suggest reviewing the chapter on Uruguay in William Blum's Killing Hope; or, if you'd prefer a more academic work, there's Jeffrey J. Ryan's chapter on Uruguay in When States Kill, edited by Cecilia Mejivar and Nestor Rodriguez.
Take care,
Nick Alexandrov
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)You have more visibility of South America than I do. My observation is that mining companies are developing "claims" and that China has established some long term contracts. A government could use that rivalry to keep the typical American-dominated relationship in check. European and Canadian companies are developing claims also. Do you see anything like that happening?
Per your comments, I read the American Forces Press Service and scanned the "defense policy statement". I don't necessarily see a heavy handed 20th century styled policy of murdering activists and feminists.
Thanks for the links and welcome to DU!
NickA327
(3 posts)There does seem to be something like that in the works. For example, Venezuela and China inked a gold-mine deal last month, and Bolivia recently nationalized a Canadian mine, while in other sectors-- like hydropower-- it has pursued closer ties with China. But I realize these are just some scattered examples, and to be honest I haven't been following the issue that closely. If I do write something up, or at least read more on the matter, I'll send it your way.
And just to follow up on your comments regarding the Defense Department materials, I should add, and probably should have mentioned more in my article, that my analysis of Panetta's remarks is based largely on what's going on right now in Latin America, particularly in Honduras. Things there have really gone south since the 2009 coup, which the US supported. Campesinos, activists, and members of the LGBT community are indeed being gunned down-- two human rights lawyers were killed recently, quite possibly by the death squads that have emerged-- in an increasingly repressive climate; the violence isn't random, in other words. And it has reached the point where Honduras was named the world's murder capital recently-- drawing far less attention, it's worth noting, than violence in Venezuela, which the U.S. press always seems eager to cover in-depth, linking it directly to Chavez, even when the necessary evidence isn't there. There's one other country worth bearing in mind-- namely Colombia, with which Obama signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). That country is one of, perhaps the, most dangerous places in the world to work as a union organizer. It really is a life-or-death matter for those who decide to go that route. And the killings have continued since the FTA was signed, even though U.S. officials made the usual promises about increasing oversight of businesses, or ensuring that human rights conditions would be met before the agreement was implemented fully. So these current examples, plus the historical context, are what led me to my conclusions, not to mention the fact that-- among other points-- Panetta emphasized the ongoing role the School of the Americas (currently WHINSEC) would play. And that place has an atrocious record (http://soaw.org).
Anyway, I realize I went on at length here, but I think this stuff is important. I'm also trying to ignore this pile of essays I need to grade.
But thanks for the welcome, and if I do look more into Latin America as a battleground for North American vs. European vs. Asian companies, I'll let you know what I've found.
Judi Lynn
(160,527 posts)at the hands of U.S. manipulation very recently, if at all.
Many had hoped the current administration would repair some of the damage wrought by the Bush admimistration, and were horrified to see how things went in Honduras.
Couldn't believe a Democratic President would ever have let the same Pentagon and State Department people step up their support for the true professional crimimal class in Honduras, even as they brought back the notorious death squad leader, Billy Joya, Honduras' version of "Blowtorch Bob" Roberto D'Aubuisson, who should have been imprisoned so long ago.
It was so important seeing your article. Completely worthwhile. Hope many, many others will see it now, and in the following days. It's time we all started tuning into what the U.S. presence has really done in the
Americas.
Thank you.
NickA327
(3 posts)Agreed-- and thank you for posting this, Judi.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)more telling than public statements.
Though if Wikileaks could get some diplomatic cables on this, that would be something else.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Soon we will have the Pentagon providing "Health Care" in Latin America, building schools.
formercia
(18,479 posts)DoD offers 'Training', identifies candidates who will 'tow the Line', recruits them and makes sure they rise through the ranks. Somehow, these candidates become Dictatorial Assh0les and DoD ends up having to use the Military to put them down. When is the last time a CIA backed populist took power anywhere? That creature doesn't exist.It never will exist.
If these Countries want to stay independent, they need to tell the US to go pound sand. I've seen it time and again, where the DoD promotes some Progressive agenda to get the funding, which then turns out to not to have been their true agenda at all. Anyone who believes any proposal by CIA to aid a Country has anything but a black underbelly is seriously delusional or on their payroll.