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.

COLOMBIA TO ALLOW U.S. MILITARY ACCESS & PRESENCE

The BBC reports today that Colombia is finalizing an agreement with the United States to allow U.S. forces the use of three Colombian airfields.

Writes the BBC:

"Colombia's government says it is close to sealing an agreement with Washington to make Colombia a hub for US anti-drug operations in South America.

"The deal would give the US access to air bases in Colombia to gather intelligence and support operations against drugs production and terrorism."

This agreement is troubling. Why must the United States have a central base in Colombia? So it can attack its "enemies" like Hugo Chavez who called Bush the "great Satan"? All the Latin countries are going to be hating this. And where is Obama's policy towards Latin America in all of this? This is gunboat diplomacy all over again.

The BBC reports that Rafael Correa, President of neighboring Ecuador, would die rather than allowing the U.S. similar access:

"Ecuador's left-wing president Rafael Correa, a political ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, has said he would rather "cut off his arm" than allow the Americans to stay on at Manta."

And why are the Colombians putting up with this? This agreement practically cedes Colombian sovereignty to the U.S. military. Is Colombia and its president Alvaro Uribe that backward looking that they welcome and even invite the U.S. to establish military hegemony?

Reports the BBC:

"Colombian officials have rejected accusations that the deal would infringe the country's sovereignty.

"Colombia is the biggest recipient of US military aid in the Americas.

"The US was forced to look for a new centre for regional operations after Ecuador refused to renew the lease on its military base of Manta."

The BBC writes:

"Final details of the Colombian plan are still being worked out but the US may use at least three air bases, including Malambo in the north, and Palanquero and Apiay in the central region.

"A maximum of 800 US military personnel and 600 civilian defence contractors would be based in Colombia.

"They would operate the US aircraft that maintain 24-hour monitoring of the region, intercepting communications and coordinating with spy satellites to protect US interests."

The whole agreement reeks of yanqui imperialism and domination. Has Barack Obama signed off on this? Does he realize the bad impression this deal will carry in the eyes of Latinos in every country and hamlet in South and Central America? After making such a good impression with Latin leaders at the last America summit, Obama squanders it all by allowing the U.S. military to make this unnecessary and ill-timed agreement.

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.

U.S. FIRES MISSILE INTO PAKISTAN, KILLS 11 PAKISTANI SOLDIERS

The BBC reports today that it was an American missile shot from across the border in Afghanistan that killed 11 Pakistani soldiers.

"Pakistan's military has condemned an air strike by Afghanistan-based US forces that killed 11 of its troops as a "cowardly attack".

"The incident happened inside Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan, as US-led forces tackled pro-Taleban militants.

"The US military confirmed it had used artillery and air strikes after coming under fire from "anti-Afghan" forces."

On what basis is the United States allowed or permitted under international law to fire a missile into another sovereign country like Pakistan? The answer is such military cross-border attacks are illegal, and the U.S. is playing the role of the aggressor-bully in interfering in the internal affairs of another sovereign country.

The situation is very much like the attack by Colombia on March 1st against members of the FARC inside of neighboring Ecuador. There is no justification for mounting an attack against people in other countries. Colombia was not justified, and neither is the United States under George Bush.

Pakistan has every right to strongly complain against the illegal operations of U.S. forces. George Bush is constantly singing odes to democracy, yet here we see the U.S. indirectly attacking the democratically elected government of Pakistan because it has given signals that it will not cooperate with or tolerate U.S. raids against Pakistani tribesmen suspected of harboring the Taliban inside Pakistan.

STOP FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH COLOMBIA

Congress must resist the pressure coming from George Bush to approve the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Colombia.

AP's Martin Crutsinger writes in today's washingtonpost.com:

"The need for this agreement is too urgent, the stakes for our national security are too high to allow this year to end without a vote," Bush said.

"Bush signed a document to transmit the trade agreement to Congress, but Congress won't formally receive it until lawmakers return on Tuesday. Bush's action will force Congress to take up the proposal under a fast-track process that requires votes within 90 days. Officials said Bush is acting now in order to force a vote before Congress leaves in the fall for the campaign season.

""If Congress fails to approve this agreement, it would not only abandon a brave ally, it would send a signal throughout the region that America cannot be counted on to support its friends," Bush said."

For one thing, these free trade agreements don't do enough to protect the indigenous farmer and small business in the Latin countries. As we have seen from NAFTA, the benefits of free trade usually go to the large American agri-businesses and mega-businesses. The subsistence-level Mexican farmer is left to suffer the severe economic consequences. The question for Mexicans is then, how does a small farm compete with the large corporate American mega-farms that can produce corn or tomatoes so much more cheaply? NAFTA has done nothing to answer this question, and I am sure neither does the proposed agreement with Colombia.

Second, Colombia is rife with para-military groups intent on preserving landowners from the lower classes. This is the reason for FARC, the Colombian insurgency, that for the last 20 years plus has waged guerrilla war against the Colombian government. We have Alvaro Uribe now as president of Colombia. He is a direct scion of the privileged classes. This past March 1st, Uribe directed Colombian army units to cross the border and mount an attack against FARC in a camp in Ecuador, something that violates all international norms on the sovereignty of countries and their borders. The result was that some dozens were killed, including four Mexican college students who were investigating FARC's modus vivendi. Also killed was a high FARC commander, Raul Reyes, who seemed willing to negotiate the release of some two thousand hostages held by FARC. Reyes' killing has effectively put an end to further FARC releases of hostages, including the most famous, Ingrid Betancourt, former Colombian presidential candidate.

Congress should turn down George Bush's agreement with Colombia until Uribe and his Colombian supporters agree to root out the para-militaries and guarantee Colombian subsistence farmers a fair deal in any agreement on trade with the U.S. George Bush has sent billions of dollars of military aid to Uribe in the hopes of countering Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Boliva and Rafael Correa of Ecuador. Congress cannot and should not allow Bush to get away with this free trade pact, above all designed to punish Latin countries that see Bush for what he is, the worst war monger and American imperialist since Richard Nixon.

U.S. SUPPORTS COLOMBIA IN ITS ILLEGAL RAID INTO ECUADOR

The lead story on the Spanish language TV stations such as Univision continues to be about how Latin and South American nations respond to the invasion of Ecuador by Colombia. Colombia flouted international law in its zeal to kill members of the FARC, the Colombian insurgency group. Recall that last weekend, Colombia sent its armed forces into Ecuador to bomb a FARC camp. The raid left about 16 FARC members dead, including FARC number two leader, Raul Reyes. This is a big story, notwithstanding TV stations and networks in the U.S. all but ignoring it.

Just yesterday, Nicaragua broker off diplomatic relations with Colombia. About the only country in the Western Hemisphere to support Colombia and its embattled president Alvaro Uribe is the United States. Everyone agrees Colombia's foray was illegal and dangerous. No matter how much Colombia and Uribe wanted to capture or kill FARC members, Colombia had no right under international law to cross the border into Ecuador which lies just to its south.

Of course, there is plenty of precedent for this violation of national sovereignty. Consider Israel's invasion of Lebanon last summer. Or take the recent firing of U.S. missiles onto some small village in Somalia. Or the best example: Bush and the United States invading Iraq.

No wonder the U.S. supports Colombia in the raid. Colombia just did what the U.S. has been doing all along in invading other countries illegally. The Bush administration tries to paper over the violation of Ecuador's borders. As to international law, U.S. State Department spokesmen all but ignore it.

NY TIMES MISSES GOOD WORK OF HUGO CHAVEZ IN FREEING COLOMBIAN HOSTAGES

The New York Times today has an editorial on the recent intrusion of armed forces of Colombia into Ecuador. This clearly violated international law. One country cannot legally invade another, even if the intrusion was only a mile or two. However the NY Times seems to believe that Hugo Chavez and Venezuela are meddlesome interlopers:

"Venezuela — whose territory wasn’t violated — jumped in. President Hugo Chávez, who thrives on such crises, expelled Colombia’s ambassador, ordered forces to his border and threatened to block trade. Colombia then accused both Venezuela and Ecuador of aiding and abetting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the guerrilla group known as FARC. . . .

"Mr. Chávez should just keep quiet. The more he meddles, the easier it is to believe that the charges against him are true."

In this case, the background is most important for a correct understanding of the role of Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. Venezuela borders Colombia on the north and Ecuador borders Colombia on the south. Hugo Chavez has been instrumental in freeing at least six hostages taken prisoner by the Colombian insurgence, the FARC. These hostages have been in captivity in Colombian jungles, many of them for over six years. Colombia and its U.S. backed president, Alvaro Uribe, seem more intent on killing members of the FARC than securing the release of the hostages. One of thee hostages not freed is Ingrid Betancourt, both a citizen of France and Colombia, and a candidate for Colombian presidency until she was kidnapped several years ago.

The hostage crisis forms the backdrop to the Colombian raid on a FARC camp inside of Ecuador. The Colombians killed 18 FARC members with a late night raid, including FARC # 2 officer, Raul Reyes. Given Colombia's propensity to refuse to negotiate with FARC, and in light of the recent freeing of six hostages through the personal intervention of Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, what does the raid say about the FARC hostages still not released?

Colombia has in effect said that it does not care about the hostages still in captivity. It is going to kill all members of the FARC that it can, to hell with the hostages or their families or their release. Furthermore, this is a way that Alvaro Uribe can oppose Hugo Chavez after being shown up by Chavez for not making the release of the hostages a priority of the Colombian government.

Instead of calling Chavez an outside busybody, the NY Times should commend the efforts of President Hugo Chavez for securing the release of FARC hostages up till now. Hugo Chavez was well on his way to secure the freedom of many more, including Ingrid Betancourt. Now in light of the foolish Colombian raid, it is doubtful that the FARC will release any more. No wonder Hugo Chavez felt compelled to condemn Uribe and Colombia. In criticizing Chavez, the NY Times missed the whole import of the altruistic Chavez involvement.

COLOMBIA AND BUSH PLAN INVASION OF ECUADOR, KILL FARC REBELS

I am amazed by George Bush's lame defense of Alvaro Uribe and Colombia for their intrusion into Ecuador and their killing of some 17 FARC rebels making camp in Ecuador territory.

Bush apparently has no sense of international law. One country is not allowed to enter and bomb another country when it wishes. That's the whole concept of sovereignty. Imagine what Americans would say if Mexico sent helicopters to attack rebels who were on the U.S. side of the border. But Bush throughout his seven years has shown himself to be as capable as Uribe in violating borders of other countries. Just two days ago, Bush had the U.S. Navy shoot a missile into some small village in Somalia. How's that for respecting sovereignty of other nations?

Just because Colombia wanted to kill FARC rebels is no justification for its invasion of Ecuador. The end cannot and does not justify the means.

We can all forget about securing the release of Ingrid Betancourt, the most famous hostage currently being held captive by the FARC. The same for the other dozens of hostages now currently being held. But upon reflection, it is clear Colombia and Uribe don't really care about Colombian hostages. All they care about is waging war upon the FARC and killing FARC members.