Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Judi Lynn

(160,527 posts)
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:46 AM Oct 2012

Panetta Down South: The Pentagon’s New Plan to Confront Latin America’s Pink Tide

October 19-21, 2012

Panetta Down South

The Pentagon’s New Plan to Confront Latin America’s 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 hemisphere’s 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 neighbor’s defense establishment. In the 1960s, Washington initiated a decade-long training program for Uruguay’s police, helping transform them from a weak, underfunded force into an efficient instrument of repression. The metamorphosis coincided with Uruguay’s descent from democracy to dictatorship, as “the Switzerland of Latin America” became, by the time the U.S. had finished its work, the world’s 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 Kennedy’s program reflected his agenda accurately—to about the same extent Obama’s 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 fraud’s 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 Uruguay’s Public Safety Program (PSP) from 1964-1974.

The PSP was a training program for Uruguay’s 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 company—who was also President Jorge Pacheco Areco’s close friend and adviser—in 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 Uruguay’s 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 analysis—which was the CIA’s—are 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/

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Panetta Down South: The Pentagon’s New Plan to Confront Latin America’s Pink Tide (Original Post) Judi Lynn Oct 2012 OP
Du rec. Nt xchrom Oct 2012 #1
What exactly did Panetta say? Kolesar Oct 2012 #2
Re: What exactly did Panetta say? NickA327 Oct 2012 #5
Could you write about America's rivalry with China to extract their natural resources? Kolesar Oct 2012 #7
Re: Could you write... NickA327 Oct 2012 #8
A lot of U.S. Americans are only beginning to awaken to Latin American history Judi Lynn Oct 2012 #9
Re: A lot... NickA327 Oct 2012 #10
did you expect him to say "repress your own people"? With politicians, their track record is a lot yurbud Oct 2012 #6
What a waste. Same old failed policies, like war was a social program. bemildred Oct 2012 #3
Same old Whore in a new Dress formercia Oct 2012 #4

NickA327

(3 posts)
5. Re: What exactly did Panetta say?
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 12:49 PM
Oct 2012

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)
7. Could you write about America's rivalry with China to extract their natural resources?
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:31 PM
Oct 2012

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)
8. Re: Could you write...
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:19 PM
Oct 2012

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)
9. A lot of U.S. Americans are only beginning to awaken to Latin American history
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:20 PM
Oct 2012

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.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
6. did you expect him to say "repress your own people"? With politicians, their track record is a lot
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 12:58 PM
Oct 2012

more telling than public statements.

Though if Wikileaks could get some diplomatic cables on this, that would be something else.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
3. What a waste. Same old failed policies, like war was a social program.
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:22 AM
Oct 2012

Soon we will have the Pentagon providing "Health Care" in Latin America, building schools.

formercia

(18,479 posts)
4. Same old Whore in a new Dress
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:42 AM
Oct 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Panetta Down South: The P...