The US threat to Latin America

[Peace Patriot]

THE US THREAT TO LATIN AMERICA

Tuesday 20 April 2010 Grace Livingstone (Morningstar on-line, UK)

The military agreement between the United States and Colombia has caused outcry in Latin America. Many governments suspect that the US is trying to cement its military hegemony in the region and maintain its ability to intervene in the affairs of Latin American countries.

The State Department says that the deal is all about security within Colombia and does not affect other countries, but Pentagon documents show that the US has far wider and more ominous objectives.

An US air force budget justification Bill, sent to Congress last year, states that Palanquero airbase in Colombia "provides an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout south America."

Full spectrum operations is Pentagon jargon for dominating the battle space on land, sea, air and space and can include the use of nuclear weapons.

The document went on: "Development of this CSL provides a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical subregion of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics-funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-US governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters."

Although the offending text was hurriedly deleted before the Bill was passed, the document showed that the US was not intending to confine its operations to Colombia and regards Palanquero as an important strategic asset for its regional, and even global, operations.

This analysis is confirmed by another US air force document which was prepared for a US military conference last year.

The global en route strategy white paper, prepared by Air Mobility Command, shows how Colombia's Palanquero base will slot into a worldwide network of "en route" air bases giving the US airforce rapid "global access" to areas of "strategic interest."

The new Defence Co-operation Agreement (DCA) allows the US to use seven named bases in Colombia, but US troops are not limited to these seven bases. They can use as many military bases or facilities as they like in Colombia, with the agreement of the host government.

The White House says that the existing cap of 800 US soldiers and 600 civilian contractors in Colombia will remain, but there is no mention of a cap in this latest agreement.

While all eyes have been on the Middle East, US involvement in Colombia's counter-insurgency war has been gradually growing. US troops and special forces are involved in reconnaissance, operating radar sites, transporting Colombian troops and logistical back-up to combat operations.

US troops already use many Colombian bases, including Tres Esquinas, in Farc-dominated territory in the south and Arauca close to the Venezuelan border.

The wording of the agreement is vague, giving great scope for US action. The bases can be used "in order to address common threats to peace, stability, freedom and democracy."

These parameters are so broad that they could include anything from counter-insurgency to operations against "anti-US governments."

The deal does have a non-intervention clause, stating that "the parties shall comply with their obligations under this agreement in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity of states, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states."

Colombia's neighbours, however, are not reassured by this and do not think the wording is watertight.

Venezuela, which is frequently defined as an "anti-US government" in State Department and Pentagon documents, already has two US air bases immediately to the north in Aruba and Curacao and it views with growing unease the US military-build up just over its western border.

But it is not just Venezuela. Almost (all) the countries of the Union of South American Nations, including Chile, Peru, Paraguay and Uruguay, have expressed concern.

Argentina and Brazil have issued a strongly worded statement saying that foreign bases are "incompatible with the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states within the region."

The US military presence is also bolstered by the Fourth Fleet of the US navy* which was reactivated in 2008 despite protests by Latin American governments.

It patrols the waters surrounding Latin America and the Caribbean and includes nuclear submarines in its fleet. Surveying the hemisphere from the air are US air force "airborne warning and control system" radar planes.

The pretext for the US presence in Colombia is counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism. Colombia has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere and, on some counts, the murder of trade unionists for example, the worst in the world.

The US has been pouring in military aid - $6 billion between 1997-2010, more than all the rest of Latin America put together.

Yet in that time human rights abuses by the Colombian army have increased, according to the United Nations high commission for human rights.

Extra-judicial executions by the army are "widespread," says the UN, and perpetrated by "military units throughout the country."**

Collusion with paramilitary forces is still rife and recent political scandals show "the extent of paramilitary infiltration of the state" - extraordinarily powerful language for a body such as the UN to use.

Within Colombia, there is disquiet at the expanding US presence. Most of the text of the agreement focuses on what taxes the US will be exempt from.

US military forces or civilian personnel won't have to pay road tolls, harbour fees, overflight or landing fees, entry or departure fees or import taxes. They won't need licences to construct satellites and the Colombian authorities will not be able to inspect US vehicles or aircraft.

All US personnel will be immune from criminal prosecution**, if this clause is ratified by the Colombian authorities. But perhaps the country whose sovereignty is most threatened is Colombia itself.

-----

Grace Livingstone is the author of America's Backyard: The United States And Latin America From The Monroe Doctrine To The War On Terror (Zed Books). She will be one of the speakers at an Alba seminar and reception, Building a New Latin America, alongside the ambassadors of Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela, the charge d'affaires of Nicaragua and TUC deputy general secretary Frances O'Grady. The event is on Thursday from 2pm-6pm at Canning House, 2 Belgrave Square, London SW1X 8PJ. Entrance is £5 and must be booked in advance at [email protected] or call [phone].

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/89397

(my emphases)

--------------------------------

Notes:

*The president of Brazil said that the U.S. 4th Fleet poses a "threat to Brazil's oil." (Everybody south of the border knows that it is a threat to Venezuela's.)

**Recently, a mass grave with up to 2,000 bodies was found in La Macarena, Colombia, in close proximity to a U.S. military base. Local people say that the bodies are those of 'disappeared' local community activists. La Macarena is a region of particular interest and activity for the U.S. military and the USAID.

The La Macarena massacre (includes a description of, and links to docs about, U.S. ops in La Macarena)
http://www.cipcol.org/?p=1303

The UK military connection
http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2010/02/04/silence-on-british-army-link-to-colombian-mass-grave/

U.S. and Colombia Cover Up Atrocities Through Mass Graves, by Dan Kovalik 4/1/10
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/us-colombia-cover-up-atro_b_521402.html

[rabs]

1. Can you imagine

if the bases accords are declared unconstitutional?

It could happen, the way the tide has turned in Colombia since alvarito was banned from running for a third term.

Think the Constitutional Court is no longer cowed (and the judges rightfully pissed at the DAS harassment) as in the heyday of the uribista regime.

Last week the same CC dealt uribe another legal hammer blow when it declared his national health emergency he tried to impose by presidential decree to be unconstitutional. The court said the Congress was the entity that should decide such matters, not the presidential palace.

I am hoping the court also will nullify the bases agreements (was that why Gates paid a two-day visit to Bogota last week?). It would be a serious serious setback for the Pentagon and the bushista holdovers in the Obama administration.

(Btw, I have not seen any stance by Mockus on the issue but may have missed it. Will be on the lookout.)

Article below is from March 8, and to my knowledge it did not get much play in the U.S. media.

------------------------

U.S.-Colombia Military Base Deal to Be Reviewed by Constitutional Court

Today in Latin America
Top Story – Colombia’s Constitutional Court will review a deal to allow U.S. military personnel greater access to seven military bases located throughout the country, according to Colombian daily El Tiempo.

The agreement was authorized by the Uribe administration last October and the U.S. expects it to take effect in May, but the Court says that Congress may have to approve it. It is illegal under the Colombian Constitution to allow foreign soldiers into the country without congressional approval (Article 173). The Álvaro Uribe administration has said that the agreement with the U.S. was not a new one, but rather an extension of an existing, decades-old military pact and, consequently, should not require separate scrutiny.

Margarita Carreño, a Colombian official, also said that the provision allowing legal immunity to U.S. personnel in Colombia should be revised.

Story:
http://latindispatch.com/2010/03/08/u-s-colombia-military-base-deal-to-be-reviewed-by-constitutional-court/

[Peace Patriot]

2. Thanks for keeping an eye on the Colombia court re the U.S. military agreement!

The agreement really is an all-out assault on Colombia's sovereignty. Imagine the reverse--the Colombian military running all over the U.S. with total diplomatic immunity, flying jet bombers and spy planes freely over our skies, conducting military maneuvers out of our military bases, freely shipping in and out of our ports--it boggles the mind.

Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, made a similar point, when he fulfilled his campaign promise, and kicked the U.S. military out of the base in Manta, Ecuador. When reporters asked him about it, he said that he would agree to a U.S. military base in Ecuador when the U.S. permits an Ecuadoran base in Miami!

I hope that the justices in Colombia's Supreme Court has some devotion to their country.

[Zorro]

3. So what's the timeline for the US to attack Venezuela?

[Peace Patriot]

5. How should I know? I'm merely one of the U.S. taxpayer suckers who are paying for

at least SEVEN U.S. military bases in Colombia, for "full spectrum military operations in south America," U.S. military bases in Honduras and Panama, the U.S. 4th Fleet (mothballed since WW II, reconstituted by the Bush Junta) roaming the Caribbean and Venezuela's oil coast, the U.S. military bases on the Dutch islands right off Venezuela's oil coast, the USAID, CIA and other U.S. agencies supporting fascist groups, including coup plotters and assassins, throughout Latin America, and the corrupt, failed, murderous U.S. "war on drugs." The Pentagon does not make me, or their other funders, privy to their war plans. They like to spring their wars upon us with "Gulf of Tonkin" incidents and egregious lies about WMDs. We never know when they will do so, and, when they do, we will be helpless to stop them. We go to jail if we don't pay our taxes. They get medals for slaughtering a hundred thousand innocent people in one week of bombing alone, to steal their oil.

So, you know, go to the door of the Pentagon and ask: What's your plan for Venezuela, guys? How ya gonna pull it off? Give me dates, status of forces, estimated "collateral damage" and how you're gonna sell it--RIGHT NOW! Cuz you have a right to know.

They'll take your sword away, Zorro.

:rofl:

[Bacchus39]

6. you said two years now about 19 months isn't it.? to invade Ven

the Obama/Mockus war machine is getting ready.

[Peace Patriot]

7. I have never ever predicted any date. I don't have a crystal ball. With the intensified

U.S. military occupation of Colombia and all the other U.S. military war assets being installed/beefed up in Latin America, especially Central America/the Caribbean (the "circle the wagons" region) and the relentless, on-going, intensifying propaganda campaign against Chavez, I was thinking it might be sooner rather than later, about the time that Obama was elected. We have, for a precedent, the CIA springing the "Bay of Pigs" on JFK very early in his only term. But there is also the later pattern of Clinton prepping the war on Iraq and the Bush Junta invading. The fascist coup in Honduras, with U.S. complicity, six months into Obama's first year was a further bad sign. That coup was as much to protect the U.S. base in Honduras, as anything else. (And it's interesting that the U.S. military commanders sat on their hands when the coupsters stopped in to refuel the plane carrying the kidnapped president out of the country at gunpoint. Zelaya had proposed converting that U.S. base to a commercial airport).

The U.S. has slaughtered about a million people in Iraq, to steal their oil. The U.S. is a rogue state, proven capable of the worst atrocities and is still committing them in Afghanistan/Pakistan. It is capable of anything, and it is especially capable of anything when it comes to oil.

Anyway, who knows? As I said, I just help pay for it all and go to jail if I don't. All I can do is ADD UP THE FACTS THAT WE KNOW, and those point not just to hostility to the Chavez government, but to the Pentagon surrounding Venezuela's oil coast and northern oil provinces with U.S. war assets. What is it FOR? You tell me. And don't say "the war on drugs" or I will think you a fool as well as a rightwinger.

[Bacchus39]

8. not for invading Venezuela

and you did say within two years. the war on drugs isn't a good strategy, it doesn't mean that the US government still isn't pursuing that failed strategy. the failed supposed war on drugs is a more plausible explanation than your invasion theory. I say the US use of bases in Colombia is to replace the activities the US did in Manta, Ecuador. Obama isn't going to invade, and if Mockus is elected you and Chavez will have to find another demon.

[Peace Patriot]

9. The alleged purpose of the U.S. military base at Manta was the "war on drugs," so you are a

fool. And you can't count, either. That was ONE military base, and "the activities the US did in Manta, Ecuador" are comparable to SIX MORE U.S. military bases in Colombia? Do the math. Why six MORE? In addition to Honduras? In addition to Panama? In addition to the Dutch islands? In addition to the 4th Fleet?

Anybody with an objective mind looking at this would ask "Why?" Anyone paying for it SHOULD ask why. So I'm asking WHY? There is no good reason for all this, especially at a time when the Bush Junta has bankrupted us, and our school systems and public services are going down, and millions are unemployed and/or homeless. Vast war profiteering corruption COULD BE the answer, except that these U.S. war assets form a ring around Venezuela's oil region. And did this corrupt U.S. national political establishment not just slaughter a million people to get their oil? Yes, they did. Would they do it again?

Nothing I have said can be described as an "invasion theory." I am not privy to the CIA/Pentagon's war plans and how they intend to conduct this one, if they decide to do so. In the Ecuador incident in 2008, they used the Colombian military as a front. There is evidence of fascist groups in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, devising "secession" strategies. Ecuador's president said these groups are coordinated. And Bolivia was directly hit with a "secession" coup scheme--the white separatist movement--funded and organized right out of the U.S. embassy, which tried to split off from Bolivia in late 2008, taking Bolivia's gas and oil reserves with them. So the war strategy for Venezuela could be, a) a fascist group in the northern oil provinces declares their "independence" and asks their brethren in the Colombian military for support; b) the Pentagon orchestrates this "invasion" from its bases in Colombia, provides various kinds of support and never actually invades Venezuela (the U.S. army marching in), but, hey, "Mission Accomplished": Venezuela is, at minimum, totally disrupted, and, at worst, occupied by the Colombian military which installs a U.S. friendly puppet regime and starts killing off leftists.

The situation in Colombia mostly resembles the situation in South Vietnam in the early 1960s--a puppet U.S. government (created by the CIA and funded by U.S. taxpayers), which "invites" the U.S. military into their country to fight a war that they could otherwise not win. The U.S. gradually increases on-the-ground U.S. military forces until "something happens" to trigger an escalation. Congress never declares a war. A war just, um, happens. The U.S. has already performed the function of fighting a war that the extremely corrupt Colombian government and military could not win--against the FARC guerrillas. The U.S. provided (is providing) $7 BILLION in military aid to Colombia, plus numerous military "advisers." With those forces in place, and the SEVEN new military bases, would they escalate into the surrounding countries (Venezuela, Ecuador), to steal their oil? Did Nixon bomb Cambodia? Did the U.S. war spread to all of Southeast Asia? The big U.S. military presence provides momentum. The oil provides the motive.

[Bacchus39]

10. read your own conspiracy theory and tell me who is the fool

yes, the Manta base was obstensibly for counter narcotics, in fact, I would say that was likely its main purpose. Now I say again, I don't agree with the war on drugs, but that doesn't mean I don't believe the US government is still pursuing the same failed policy.

Venezuela sells us oil and we buy it, what would an invasion be for? Colombia isn't going to invade Venezuela and President Obama isn't going to support Colombia in doing so. You are just another "Democrat" here who has no faith in our President. you and your kind simply don't like the US. Its not difficult to see.

[Peace Patriot]

13. "Venezuela sells us oil and we buy it, what would an invasion be for?"

For Exxon Mobil, Chevron, et al, to not have to pay for Venezuela's social programs. They got virtually all the profit before Chavez--with a bit raked off the top by Venezuela's rightwing oil elite. Chavez said that was unfair--Venezuela's poor should benefit from Venezuela's own resource (nationalized prior to Chavez) and renegotiated the oil contracts, from a 10/90 giveaway of the profits to the multinationals, to a fairer 50/50 split of the profits, favoring Venezuela and its social programs, with 60/40 Venezuelan control of the projects.

Exxon Mobil doesn't tolerate assertions of local power and sovereignty that cut into its profits or challenge its overweaning power, and recently hijacked the U.S. military to slaughter a million innocent people in Iraq, to make that point.

They walked out of the talks with Venezuela, and into a "first world" court and tried to grab $12 billion of Venezuela's assets--the biggest, most powerful multinational corporation on earth literally trying to take food out of the mouths of poor children and books out of their hands--and lost the first legal round (I believe that is still being litigated). Eight other companies, from as many countries, agreed to Venezuela's terms (including Chevron), and China just entered the picture with more oil contracts to develop the Orinoco Belt (Venezuela has the biggest oil reserve on earth--twice Saudi Arabia's). Exxon Mobil is out in the cold. They--and Chevron--have reason to want the U.S. military to do their dirty work for them again. (Chevron has a beef with Ecuador's leftist government--bordering Colombia to the south--over a massive Chevron-Texaco oil spill in the Ecuadoran rainforest. They would like the big lawsuit brought by Indigenous tribes to go away. Ecuador also kicked the U.S. military out of the country, and joined the Venezuela-organized trade group, ALBA. So there would be much reason for the Pentagon to try to net in Ecuador, as well, in a move against Venezuela--which would much please Chevron, which could then rip up its contract with the Chavez government and write a new one, and get rid of a billion dollar lawsuit in Ecuador, all at once. The U.S./Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador in March 2008 may have been, in part, a rehearsal of such a scenario.)

Why should we believe that the oil giants cannot commandeer the U.S. military again, to get them a friendly, U.S. installed government in Venezuela (and possibly Ecuador), which will give them most of the profit and make all their problems with these democratic countries go away? Because a Democrat is in the White House? Bill Clinton prepped the path to Iraq for the Bush Junta, which then invaded Iraq. I see a quite similar thing developing with regard to Venezuela--the placement of U.S. military assets all around Venezuela's oil coast and northern oil provinces; U.S. military occupation of neighboring Colombia (a government and military with one of the worst human rights records in the world); $7 BILLION in military aid to Colombia; relentless lies and propaganda about the Chavez government; illegal flyovers of Venezuelan territory from the Dutch islands right off their coast, and so on--all under Obama's watch. What is all this FOR?

There are several possible answers, but a Pentagon-planned war is certainly one of them. I don't think it would look like Iraq. I think it would look more like Vietnam--use of a client army and government (South Vietnam = Colombia) as a front, gradual build-up of U.S. military forces, creation of a pretext for escalation, and, in the case of Venezuela and Ecuador, use of local fascist groups who would declare their "independence" and ask for support, maybe just (officially) from Colombia (a U.S. client state), with the U.S. military providing logistics, surveillance, equipment, guns, bombs, etc., and lots and lots of money. This scenario may have been rehearsed in Bolivia in September 2008 (white separatists, organized and funded right out of the US embassy, tried to split off from Bolivia, taking Bolivia's main gas resource with them).

You see, I have a MEMORY. I remember things like the bombing/raid on Ecuador and that murderous white separatist business in Bolivia (with Bolivia's president throwing the U.S. ambassador out of the country, because of it). What are these things FOR? They have stated or obvious purposes but also often have hidden purposes--for instance, Pentagon testing and monitoring of responses, assessment of the military and political opposition, etc. If they can eliminate a leftist guerrilla hostage and peace negotiator, and stop the Latin American movement toward peace in Colombia's 40+ year civil war (or plant "evidence" in a guerrilla laptop that Chavez and Correa are "terrorist lovers"), at the same time, all the better. The long term purpose remains hidden--for instance, watching the Venezuelan and Ecuadoran military battalions that were sent to their borders during that bombing/raid incident, or studying Uribe's behavior afterward to assess whether or not to continue supporting him (--apparently he didn't pass muster on this and other counts).

The massive U.S. military buildup in Latin America COULD BE just war profiteering and bullying/intimidation, as I have said. I really cannot know for sure, nor can anyone except the secretive U.S. policy designers at the Pentagon and the CIA. What do they intend with all this massive expenditure on militarism in Latin America, especially in the vicinity of Venezuela's oil region?

I was just a teenager when the buildup to the Vietnam War was occurring--so I forgive myself for not recognizing, early on, that a war was coming. I was more alert on Iraq, saw it coming and protested it, early on--as well as I or any U.S. citizen could. And I am now old and wise and I NEVER WANT IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN, that the American people remain UNALERTED to signs of war. I feel that it is my patriotic duty to point out that there are MANY signs of a war plan against Venezuela and possibly its ally, Ecuador and others. I am not privy to such plans, nor to their projected time-lines. But we need to study these signs and study history--recent and past-- in order to GUESS what our government is up to, to try to head off really bad ideas if we can. It was a Democrat who escalated the Vietnam War and began the slaughter of 2 million people in Southeast Asia, including over 500,000 U.S. soldiers--a Democrat I voted for (my first presidential vote--I voted for the "peace candidate," LBJ). It was then a Republican who finished the slaughter. It was a Democrat who imposed 12 years of sanctions on Iraq and a "no fly" zone, so that, when the Republican Bush Junta invaded and bombed the shit out of the country, Iraq had no air force with which to defend itself. And it is a Democrat NOW who is presiding over the U.S. military buildup in Latin America...to be followed by? We don't know. But the pattern says war. And it makes no difference which party is in the White House or in Congress.

It is foolish and stupid to think that U.S. military aggression is some kind of outlandish idea that can't happen. It HAS happened. It IS happening. And the unique contribution to U.S. war, by the Bush Junta, was to use the U.S. military for a corporate resource war. This is the reality. And the U.S. military placing and beefing up war assets all around Venezuela is a REALITY. What is it FOR? Mere geo-political maneuvering? Mere war profiteering? Mere bullying? "Preventing communism from Venezuela reaching the United States" (as one Honduran coup general described the purpose of that fascist coup)? A proxy war? An all-out war? If it's for a proxy war or an all-out war, you heard it first from me. And if it isn't, be glad that sanity and peace prevailed. But don't blame ME for trying to penetrate our secretive government's plans. Blame THEM--for their secretiveness and their goddamned, horrible, unjust wars on behalf of war profiteers, multinational corporations and the super-rich.

[protocol rv]

19. Let's analyse Peace Patriot's Commentary

I'd like to provide some analysis on this commentary by Peace Patriot:

PP: "For Exxon Mobil, Chevron, et al, to not have to pay for Venezuela's social programs".

My comment: This comment reflects a deep misunderstanding of the way a modern society taxes and controls the oil industry. In nations where the government is rational (which of course excludes Venezuela), the government taxes the companies, and then spends on social programs as it sees fit. Oil companies don't really have a say on how the taxes of a sovereign nation are spent (unless they are squandered so much the society begins to suffer, which means its workers find themselves living in the midst of a crime wave, food shortages, power cuts, etc).

PP: "They got virtually all the profit before Chavez--with a bit raked off the top by Venezuela's rightwing oil elite.".

My comment: This of course is baloney as well. Let's discuss ExxonMobil's main investment in Venezuela - the Cerro Negro Strategic Operation. This was owned 42 1/3 % by PDVSA, 42 1/3 % by ExxonMobil, and 16 2/3 % by Veba. The strategic association was taxed at 1 % royalty, plus it had to pay income tax on profits, at the going rate for corporate tax, about 34 %. It also paid miscellaneous taxes, such as the Science and Technology Tax. When the association was formed, oil prices were very low, and the oil required enormous investments, so the government dropped the royalty to 1 % such as to allow the project to go ahead (otherwise it showed such poor cash flow, the banks would not lend the money PDVSA wanted to borrow). Later, when prices went up, the government raised the royalty to 16 %, and later, as they went up even more, the royalty was raised again to 30 %. However, that's when Chavez decided to take away the majority of the interest in these oil projects. Interestingly, the reason why ExxonMobil walked from the talks wasn't the proposed change - it was the PDVSA position that international arbitration would not be included in the new agreements. International agreement was seen as a key element by Exxon and ConocoPhillips to justify staying in the country. Their intent and reasons are clearly stated in the documents they filed with the courts when they sued PDVSA after they were kicked out. Why are they filing these claims? Because they can - the older agreements did have the international arbitration clauses, and those are being used. The case is in ICSID now, and PDVSA is going to be turned into hamburguer by Exxon's and Conoco's lawyers.

PP: "Chavez said that was unfair--Venezuela's poor should benefit from Venezuela's own resource (nationalized prior to Chavez) and renegotiated the oil contracts, from a 10/90 giveaway of the profits to the multinationals, to a fairer 50/50 split of the profits, favoring Venezuela and its social programs, with 60/40 Venezuelan control of the projects.".

My comment: This again is mere baloney. The key issue was international arbitration. With oil prices at $80 per barrel, it is possible for the government to increase taxes - and many governments aruond the world have done so. Check Angola, for example, where the taxes are raised automatically every quarter as the prices go up.

PP: "Exxon Mobil doesn't tolerate assertions of local power and sovereignty that cut into its profits or challenge its overweaning power, and recently hijacked the U.S. military to slaughter a million innocent people in Iraq, to make that point.".

My comment: Baloney. Exxon Mobil wants to profit, period. They don't really care if governments assert their sovereignity - all governments do. What they care is to make sure they get a return on what they invest, and they don't like to see their ability to appeal against arbitrary government seizings in an international arbitration forum.

PP: "They walked out of the talks with Venezuela, and into a "first world" court and tried to grab $12 billion of Venezuela's assets--the biggest, most powerful multinational corporation on earth literally trying to take food out of the mouths of poor children and books out of their hands--and lost the first legal round (I believe that is still being litigated)."

My comment: They went to a British court to freeze PDVSA assets, claiming they would win the case, and PDVSA was slowly getting rid of its assets outside Venezuela. Within a matter of days, the court ruled in PDVSA's favor, because PDVSA showed they were not selling their assets, that is, if ExxonMobil won, it could seize refineries, terminals, and other assets PDVSA owns outside Venezuela. The real court cased is in ICSID, and arbitration court, and ExxonMobil is going to win it. These cases tend to take several years. When ExxonMobil wins, then ConocoPhillips and a long list of other claimants will pile on, and PDVSA will be stripped of most of its assets.

PP: "Eight other companies, from as many countries, agreed to Venezuela's terms (including Chevron), and China just entered the picture with more oil contracts to develop the Orinoco Belt"

My comment: Other companies indeed decided to stay. They took the risk that the lack of an arbitration clause would not ruin their investments.

PP: "(Venezuela has the biggest oil reserve on earth--twice Saudi Arabia's).".

My comment: Two points to make. One the bulk of Venezuela's oil reserves are extremely heavy oil, similar to asphalt, which can't even be sold as is into the market. It requires very expensive processing to turn it into a synthetic crude. Two, it really doesn't matter if Venezuela is sitting on large oil reserves, if it lacks the money, people, managerial know how, and money (or ability to borrow it) to get the oil out of the ground. The Chavez government doesn't seem to get much done, other than sign agreements. We who are here see there are no new jobs opening, nor is there real money spent on these projects. They are "vaporware".

PP: "Exxon Mobil is out in the cold. They--and Chevron--have reason to want the U.S. military to do their dirty work for them again."

My comment: ExxonMobil and the other companies are hardly in the cold, they know they are going to win a massive law suit against PDVSA, and will end up with PDVSA's properties outside Venezuela. Until they see how that case goes, and they are sure they're about to win it, they would be foolish to lobby the USA to invade Venezuela.

PP: "(Chevron has a beef with Ecuador's leftist government--bordering Colombia to the south--over a massive Chevron-Texaco oil spill in the Ecuadoran rainforest. They would like the big lawsuit brought by Indigenous tribes to go away."

My comment: There's no such thing as a massive oil spill caused by Chevron in Ecuador. I researched this topic quite in depth, and the pollution seen today was caused by Ecuador's national oil company.

PP: " Why should we believe that the oil giants cannot commandeer the U.S. military again, to get them a friendly, U.S. installed government in Venezuela (and possibly Ecuador), which will give them most of the profit and make all their problems with these democratic countries go away?"

My comment: Because US oil companies pay taxes, and they know the US military burns through money like a drunken sailor. The main lobbies advocating US military intervention around the world are the Israel Lobby, and the Military Industrial Complex. Did you notice most US military action involves forces acting in nations where there are Muslim populations? This is because the Muslims in those countries support the Palestinians, and Israel wants to commit ethnic cleansing, wipe out the Palestinian presence in most of the West Bank. To do this, the Israelis prefer to see the USA, acting as its imperial proxy, attack and put out of action any country which does help the Palestinians.

[ChangoLoa]

17. Fascist opposition and secessionist regions in Venezuela: ABSURD

Remember some get all their understanding of Venezuela from internet sites (!) which are funded by the Venezuelan government such as venezuelanalysis. They can't possibly use our local Venezuelan press, chavista and not chavista, to get a rational view of the situation in our country.

Obama invading Venezuela...:+

[protocol rv]

21. I remember reading this technique is used by fascist regimes

They try to create fear in the people, tell them they are going to be invaded, seek conflict with other nations, sometimes they go ahead and attack other nations. I consider Bush a neo-fascist, one reason why he started the Iraq was was precisely to start this nationalistic feeding frenzy in the USA.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[troubledamerican]

12. The U.S. attacked Venezuela in April 2002. Same as Chile 9/11/73.

[Judi Lynn]

14. That bloody September 11 milestone in 1973 is hard to forget for the people who lived there,

and for the sober, conscientious U.S. Americans who know about it here.

Can't forgive the people who go out daily to try to create confusion about US history in Latin Amaerica.

Always very glad to see your comments, troubledamerican.

[Zorro]

15. Wrong on both assertions

[ChangoLoa]

18. I'm still waiting for the govt in Venezuela to start the investigation and the trial for april 2002

It's been 8 years and, somehow, I doubt it will start. Why has there been no investigation according to you?

Commemorations, permanent insistence and suspicion of people who are supposed to have participated in the coup but, amazingly, they're not judged. NO movement in the courts, no movement in the justice ministry nor in the interior ministry in EIGHT years for such a fundamental episode of our recent history.

WHY???

[protocol rv]

20. LOL

That's funny. As far as I could tell, all the protesters on the street were Venezuelans.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Thank goodness we can still see the facts printed SOMEWHERE!

It's a triumph every time we see someone getting the information out.

Uribe has racked up quite the record, hasn't he?

Thank you for the post.

Rec. #4.

[Judi Lynn]

16. Partial list of some US interventions in Latin America:

History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America

Location - Period - Type of Force - Comments on U.S. Role
Argentina - 1890 - Troops - Buenos Aires interests protected
Chile 1891 - Troops - Marines clash with nationalist rebels
Haiti - 1891 - Troops - Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated
Nicaragua - 1894 - Troops - Month-long occupation of Bluefields
Panama - 1895 - Naval, troops - Marines land in Colombian province
Nicaragua - 1896 - Troops - Marines land in port of Corinto
Cuba - 1898 - Naval, troops - Seized from Spain, U.S. still holds Navy base at Guantanamo
Puerto Rico - 1898 - Naval, troops - Seized from Spain, occupation continues
Nicaragua - 1898 - Troops - Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur
Nicaragua - 1899 - Troops - Marines land at port of Bluefields
Honduras - 1903 - Troops - Marines intervene in revolution
Dominican Republic - 1903-04 - Troops - U.S. interests protected in Revolution
Cuba - 1906-09 - Troops - Marines land in democratic election
Nicaragua - 1907 - Troops - "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up
Honduras - 1907 - Troops - Marines land during war with Nicaragua
Panama - 1908 - Troops - Marines intervene in election contest
Nicaragua - 1910 - Troops - Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto
Honduras - 1911 - Troops - U.S. interests protected in civil war
Cuba - 1912 - Troops - U.S. interests protected in Havana
Panama - 1912 - Troops - Marines land during heated election
Honduras - 1912 - Troops - Marines protect U.S. economic interests
Nicaragua - 1912-33 - Troops, bombing - 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas
Mexico - 1913 - Naval - Americans evacuated during revolution
Dominican - Republic - 1914 - Naval - Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo
Mexico - 1914-18 - Naval, troops - Series of interventions against nationalists
Haiti - 1914-34 - Troops, bombing - 19-year occupation after revolts
Dominican Republic - 1916-24 - Troops - 8-year Marine occupation
Cuba - 1917-33 - Troops - Military occupation, economic protectorate
Panama - 1918-20 - Troops - "Police duty" during unrest after elections
Honduras - 1919 - Troops - Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala - 1920 - Troops - 2-week intervention against unionists
Costa Rica - 1921 - Troops
Panama - 1921 - Troops
Honduras - 1924-25 - Troops - Landed twice during election strife
Panama - 1925 - Troops - Marines suppress general strike
El Salvador - 1932 - Naval - Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt
Uruguay - 1947 - Nuclear threat - Bombers deployed as show of strength
Puerto Rico - 1950 - Command operation - Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce
Guatemala - 1954-? - Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat - CIA directs exile invasion and coup d'Etat after newly elected government nationalizes unused U.S.'s United Fruit Company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua; long-term result: 200,000 murdered
Panama - 1958 - Troops - Flag protests erupt into confrontation
Cuba - 1961 - Command operation - CIA-directed exile invasion fails
Cuba - 1962 - Nuclear threat, naval - Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union
Panama - 1964 - Troops - Panamanians shot for urging canal's return
Dominican Republic - 1965-66 - Troops, bombing - Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala 1966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels
Chile - 1973 - Command operation - CIA-backed coup ousts democratically elected Marxist president
El Salvador - 1981-92 - Command operation, troops - Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash; long-term result: 75,000 murdered and destruction of popular movement
Nicaragua - 1981-90 - Command operation, naval - CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution; result: 50,000 murdered
Honduras - 1982-90 - Troops - Maneuvers help build bases near borders
Grenada - 1983-84 - Troops, bombing - Invasion four years after revolution
Bolivia - 1987 - Troops - Army assists raids on cocaine region
Panama - 1989 - Troops, bombing - Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed
Haiti - 1994-95 - Troops, naval - Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup
Venezuela - 2002 - Command operation - Failed coup attempt to remove left-populist president Hugo Chavez
Haiti - 2004- Troops - Removal of democratically elected President Aristide; troops occupy country

http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html