U.S. PLAN TO PUT 800+ TROOPS IN COLOMBIA ROILS LATIN AMERICA

Bolivian President Evo Morales terms the agreement by Colombian president Alvaro Uribe a sell-out of Latin countries to the United States. I totally agree.

The BBC reports:

"Mr Morales said that Bogota's plan was aimed at countering the efforts of left-wing governments like his.

"He said those governments were fighting for greater social justice."

There is no good reason why Barack Obama approved sending 800+ more U.S. troops to Colombia. The proffered reason is that the troops are going to help with anti-drug operations. This is patently pretextual and ingenuous.

The real reason, offered by Evo Morales, is that the U.S. wants to spy on and impede those countries that are putting social programs into effect to help their poor and indigenous.

Does Barack Obama know of the turmoil resulting from this silly and foolish U.S. plan to base hundreds of American soldiers in Colombia? If he does, he needs to explain why it is worth it given the anti-American sentiment naturally created in the souls of the street in every country in South and Central America.

CHAVEZ SAYS U.S. INCITES POSSIBLE WAR BY SENDING YANQUI TROOPS TO COLOMBIA

I saw and heard Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, this evening on the news broadcast of Univision claim that there was going to be a war in Latin America, and the instigator would be the United States.

Now there are many things that Hugo Chavez says and does to which I object, like trying to close radio and TV stations that don't agree with him politically. And I have strenuously objected in previous posts.

On the other hand, I totally agreed when Hugo Chavez called George W. Bush a threat to world peace, and Satan himself. I thought Chavez was spot on.

And I agree with him that the U.S. has done a stupid thing in agreeing with Alvaro Uribe president of Colombia to send some 800+ American troops to that country, together with spy planes and other deadly weapons. The whole of Latin America has been thrown in turmoil and confusion by this move.

Who in the Department of Defense advised Obama to send the Yanquis? I would like to know because this person has no sensitivity to the feelings and opinions of the ordinary citizen who hates the prospect of Yanqui troops based in a Latin country. The whole agreement smacks of "gunboat diplomacy" and Yanqui imperialism.

And to think that Obama is so clueless about the culture of Latin America that he went along with this dumb ass idea that could spark a war between Colombia and its neighbors such as Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela.

OBAMA CLUELESS ABOUT LATIN AMERICA IN SENDING U.S. SOLDIERS TO COLOMBIA

Which idiot in the Obama administration approved the sending of 1,000 additional U.S. soldiers to duty in Colombia? Whoever it was has no idea of the politics and feelings of the various Latin American countries which strongly oppose the presence of more Yanqui troops in a neighboring country. It would appear that Obama himself has no sense of what is happening in Central and South America, the move to the left and the quest for economic and social justice and equality. More seriously, Obama appears to be saying that he has no interest in cultivating serious ties with governments there.

It is not only Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Rafael Correa of Ecuador or Evo Morales of Bolivia who decries the invasion of the Yanquis into nearby Colombia. It is more centrist Lula da Silva of Brazil and Michelle Bachelet of Chile who also object.

The BBC reports that Colombia's president Alvaro Uribe will visit some of the Latin countries in an effort to quell the objections.

"Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is to tour other South American countries concerned about plans to increase the US military presence in Colombia.

"Bogota said he would visit this week Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and was planning trips to three other nations.

"Venezuela has expressed alarm at plans to relocate US anti-drug forces to bases in Colombia, and Brazilian officials also say they are concerned."

Frankly there is no good reason why Obama or one of his ignorant cabinet secretaries approved more U.S. troops to be stationed in Colombia. Ostensibly it is to fight the drug trade in Colombia. But this is only a patent pretext. The real purpose must be to spy on Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay and other countries nearby where there are leftist governments that oppose American hegemony.

REIGN OF PAX OBAMA IN LATIN AMERICA

Pres. Barack Obama attended the Conference of the Americas for the past several days in Trinidad-Tobago. How things have changed in just a few months since the departure of Bush/Cheney.

Instead of insulting and patronizing other leaders of Latin countries as Bush would have done, or walking out when some leader criticizes imperialistic and militaristic U.S. policy, Obama made it a point to listen and consider viewpoints other than American ones. Obama listened to Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega criticize U.S. interference in Latin affairs and listened to Bolivia's Evo Morales unhappiness with U.S. meddling.

Bush had a list of "enemy" countries. Many on the right seem to have wanted Bush to bomb and attack the "enemies," but Obama seems to be disposed to consider other countries to be friends and allies, not adversaries.

And finally Obama had a chance to meet, greet and shake hands with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Obama still does not know how to pronounce the Venezuelan president's last name (not Sha-vez, but Cha-vez, as in cha-cha). But Obama recognizes that there is no need to see Chavez and Venezuela as the "enemy."

We see the beginning of Pax Obama, a period of peaceful cooperation between the United States and the countries to the south.

NY TIMES MISTAKEN IN SUPPORT OF TRADE AGREEMENT WITH COLOMBIA

I strongly disagree with the editorial in today's The New York Times urging the passage of the free trade agreement with Colombia.

Writes the NYT:

"We don’t say it all that often, but President Bush is right: Congress should pass the Colombian free-trade agreement now.

"Mr. Bush signed the deal two years ago. The Democratic majority in Congress has refused to approve it out of a legitimate concern over the state of human rights in Colombia and less legitimate desires to pander to organized labor or deny Mr. Bush a foreign policy win.

"We believe that the trade pact would be good for America’s economy and workers. Rejecting it would send a dismal message to allies the world over that the United States is an unreliable partner and, despite all that it preaches, does not really believe in opening markets to trade. There is no more time to waste. If the lame-duck Congress does not approve the trade pact this year, prospects would dim considerably since it would lose the cover of the rule (formerly known as fast track) that provides for an up-or-down, no-amendment vote."

Colombia has long been a home to right wing death squads. These groups seem to have the backing of Colombia's ruling class and the Colombian army. Just recently a story has emerged how the Colombian military had a practice of kidnapping young men from poorer sections of Bogota to take to the jungle, kill them, and then proffer their bodies as successful head counts in the war against the FARC.

Furthermore, Colombia's president Alvaro Uribe is no friend of the rule of law or democracy. Uribe wanted Colombia's constitution changed so he could run for a third term. Furthermore, he ordered an attack of a FARC camp inside Ecuador, a clear violation of Ecuador's sovereignty and against international law.

And Uribe is a close ally of George W. Bush. That in itself should make Congress think twice before approving the trade agreement.

Instead of blindly giving Bush and Uribe what they want, Congress should wait until the new Obama administration comes on stage. Obama needs to do a thorough review of U.S. policy towards Latin America. In particular, he needs to change the current Bush policy of neglect and disinterest in Latin American events and politics.

Obama needs to cultivate Hugo Sanchez of Venezuela as well as Evo Morales of Bolivia and Rafael Correa of Ecuador. There is no reason why Obama should continue the failed Bush policy of trying to make these leaders and their states "enemies" of the United States. I am sure they all look forward to getting rid of the Bush administration and starting a new more peaceful era with Obama.

Therefore, in disagreement with the NYT, no agreement over trade with Colombia at this point. Wait till Obama comes in. Then perhaps the U.S. can establish free trade pacts not only with Colombia but also with all the other countries in the region, including Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

FAILURE OF BUSH FOREIGN POLICY: VENEZUELA & BOLOVIA KICK OUT AMERICAN AMBASSADORS

Yesterday both Venezuela and Boliva kicked out the American ambassadors. At the same time Honduras refused to accept the credentials of the new U.S. ambassador. This was a horrible day for U.S. diplomacy and shows the results of the dismal approach of Bush and Condoleeza Rice towards Latin America.

Both Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia are in the process of re-doing their agreements with foreign oil and gas companies for the purpose of keeping more revenues and profits in their own countries from the sale of their indigenous natural resources. Of course many Republicans and neo-cons here in the U.S. see this as "socialism" and a dire threat to the "American way of life." But what Morales and Chavez are doing is exactly the same as what is now happening in Russia under Medvedev and Putin, only the Latinos are not using physical threat and force.

This is no reason for the U.S. under Bush to make the Venezuelans and Bolivians out to be "enemies." And certainly the U.S. should mind its own business and refrain from trying to aid opponents of Chavez and Morales in overthrowing democratically elected governments.

UBER-BULLY GEORGE BUSH CALLS RUSSIA "BULLY" FOR REACTING TO ATTACK BY GEORGIA ON CIVILIANS IN SOUTH OSSETIA

Of all people to call Vladimir Putin and Russia "bullies" for entering Georgia to protect Russians in South Ossetia, George W. Bush, the super-bully, actually used those words, pompously stating that that's not the way to operate foreign policy in the 21st Century.

Does the uber-bully Bush realize what a hypocrite he is? Do Americans have any idea of how people in other countries view George Bush and the United States? As the bully par excellence. Why? Just look at Iraq and what Bush has done there. Consider his treatment of Iran. Then move to North Korea, then to Venezuela, then to Bolivia, then to Cuba.

The more Bush talks, threatens, cajoles and warns on Georgia, the more ridiculous and transparently hypocritical he becomes.

BUSH'S POLICY TOWARDS RUSSIA/GEORGIA HIGHLIGHTS AMERICAN HYPOCRISY

This whole episode with Russia and Georgia throws a bright light upon the incredibly messed up and hypocritical Bush foreign policy.

Bush warns Putin not to think of "regime change," but that is exactly what Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld did in Iraq. Bush and Cheney say Russia's "aggression" will not go unanswered, but this is the very same aspiration shared by the Islamic street about the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush tells Russia to pull out of Georgia and South Ossetia, but says U.S. troops will stay indefinitely in Iraq.

Bush warns Putin not to overthrow a democratically elected government in Tbilisi but that's what Bush wants to do in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez and in Boliva with Evo Morales and in Ecuador with Rafael Correa.

Bush says that Russia must respect the territorial sovereignty of Georgia with regard to the enclaves and mini-states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia where the majority are Russians or want to be Russian. But just a few months ago, Bush and Cheney wholeheartedly supported the independence of Kosovo, torn from the territorial sovereignty of Serbia which regarded Kosovo as "holy ground."

So in view of all these oppositional positions on the part of Bush & Co., where is the consistency and rationality of the Bush foreign policy? The answer is, there is none. These guys are dangerous and they have five more months in office.