Peru, US to upgrade relationship to "strategic partnership"

[Judi Lynn]

Peru, US to upgrade relationship to "strategic partnership"

12:41 Lima, Jun. 02 (ANDINA). Peru and the United States will upgrade their relations to "strategic cooperation partnership" after a meeting between the two countries’ presidents, according to Peruvian ambassador in Washington, Harold Forsyth.

Peruvian President Ollanta Humala’s first official visit to the United States will take place on June 10-12 in response to an invitation from the U.S. president himself.

The diplomat stated both leaders will meet on June 11 at the White house and among the issues to be addressed are security, defense, drug trafficking and educational cooperation.

Moreover, Forsyth noted it is time to review the achievements made so far due to the bilateral relationship and create the conditions for a new stage which will be characterized by "maturity, mutual benefit", friendship and complementarity.

More:
http://www.andina.com.pe/Ingles/noticia-peru-us-to-upgrade-relationship-to-strategic-partnership-460985.aspx

[MADem]

1. We've been doing mil-to-mil stuff with them for many years, now. nt

[Laelth]

2. That news gives me a very bad feeling.

I suspect Peru wanted some reassurance from us, whereas the US wanted to protect its business interests from the newly-outspoken and beautifully liberal government in Bolivia.

Sad, but typical.

-Laelth

[Bacchus4.0]

3. that doesn't make much sense

why are you concerned that Peru wants to foster deeper relations with the US? What's Bolivia got to do with it?

[Laelth]

4. Bolivia wants access to the Pacific.

Bolivia has had a long and contentious relationship with both Chile and Peru. The Peruvians are (probably) worried about a potential conflict with the fairly-new, liberal, populist government of Bolivia. They probably consulted the U.S. about this concern. The Peruvians probably overstated the alleged menace posed by Bolivia in order to secure U.S. support against Bolivia. The U.S. probably promised to aid Peru in crushing this alleged "threat" from Bolivia.

I fear that the U.S. is seeking, one again, to prop up a rightist, pro-business government and crush a liberal, populist one. I don't like that. I'd rather encourage and support Bolivia, or, at the very least, stay out of a potential territorial dispute.

-Laelth

[Bacchus4.0]

5. Humala is a leftist. Supported by none other than Hugo

which, by the way, cost him the election the first time around since Chavez insulted so many Peruvians.

Humala is newer than Morales. Bolivia's claim for access to the sea is against Chile. Peru and the US have excellent relations. Does that bother you?

[Laelth]

8. I am glad to hear that Humala is a leftist.

Forgive me for being suspicious of U.S. activities in South America, but our history there is not exactly sterling. Unless I forget my history, Peru and Bolivia were allies (sort-of) in the War of the Pacific against Chile, but that the relationship between the two countries soured after the war. I am not certain whether that relationship has been repaired. If it has, then great.

The problem, as I understand it, is that Bolivia has a lot of natural gas, and they want to do the refining and loading of the gas themselves. They have no access to the Pacific, so Chile and Peru have both submitted offers to have a pipeline run through their countries. The Chile route would be shorter and cheaper, but the Bolivians are still a little bitter about their loss to Chile. The Peruvian route would be longer and more expensive, and the Bolivians might go that route, but they would prefer a port of their own.

Peru and the U.S. do have a free trade agreement signed by President Obama, and that does bother me. It's bad for the American worker, but, otherwise, I do not have a problem with strong relations between our two countries, so long as we don't start punishing Bolivia as a result of any mis-information that we may be fed by Peru and so long as we don't try to overthrow any legitimate heads of state in the region.

On those conditions, I have no problem with this "upgrade" in our relationship, but I will remain suspicious of my government's activities in Latin America.

-Laelth

[Bacchus4.0]

14. Bolivia will have to work out any access to the sea with Chile or Peru

Essentially that will involve ceding Chilean or Peruvian territory to Bolivia. Neither Chile nor Peru is interested in that.

[Laelth]

16. Indeed. Neither country intends to cede any territory to Bolivia.

Thus, it makes sense that Peru, knowing that Bolivia still wants access to the sea, might get a little paranoid, and that might inspire its government to make "arrangements" with the United States.

Thus, my concern. I hope my concern is unjustified.

-Laelth

[Bacchus4.0]

17. I doubt Peru's relationship with the US has much to do with Bolivia

Its just a matter of economics.

[Laelth]

21. Perhaps. You may be right about that.

All the same, Humala is no saint, nor is he a leftist any longer. He's governing as a centrist, at best.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/world/americas/peruvian-leaders-family-discord-becomes-its-own-sideshow.html?_r=0

-Laelth

[Laelth]

20. For purposes of clarification.

Humala definitely sold himself as a leftist, but it appears he changed course when he got into office.

Here's what his father says about him:

“It’s a matter of deception,” the elder Mr. Humala said of his son’s first year in office. The father has loudly opposed his son’s support of the mining industry and a government crackdown on antimining protests that has left several people dead.

He has accused the government of violating the rights of another son, Antauro, who is imprisoned for leading a failed rebellion in 2005. And after a cabinet reshuffling last month, Isaac Humala offered this analysis of most of his son’s ministers: “They should be in jail.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/world/americas/peruvian-leaders-family-discord-becomes-its-own-sideshow.html?_r=0

His sister opposes him, as do his brothers, especially the one he imprisoned. Lots more interesting information at the link above.

-Laelth

[naaman fletcher]

26. Intersting

Thank you

[Judi Lynn]

6. To further isolate Bolivia. No doubt whatsoever.

They see Peru as "easy" to pick off. Peru has always been submissive to US corporate interests. Always.

[naaman fletcher]

9. Why would Humala allow that?

According to PP:

Ollanta Humala is who were are rooting for. He is an indigenous Indian

allied with Evo Morales in neighboring Bolivia, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and is most in tune with other leftist democrats around Latin America, who have been swept into power over the last several years in this amazing peaceful, democratic, leftist revolution throughout Latin America (in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, Venezuela and now Peru--virtually the entire continent). (I'm not sure about Paraguay and Ecuador--mentioned in the great Ted Rall article today about Chavez*.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=888895&mesg_id=889242

[Judi Lynn]

10. You'll get nowhere trying to pit democratic posters against friends they admire and respect so much.

Don't you understand how disgusting that is?

If you had any dignity left you would have left long ago.

We don't go for that here.

[naaman fletcher]

11. Huh?

I didn't put anybody against anybody. A well respected poster here has a very high view of Humala.

Given that, I am wondering why Humala would allow the US to use Peru against Bolivia.

It's a relevant question, as indicted by your off topic response.

[Judi Lynn]

12. Humala has done a lot of things which surprised those of us who supported him from long ago,

from before the election he lost.

Peace Patriot's comments are completely appropriate to the time in which she posted them.

We have all been myetified over quite a few choices he's made since then.

Calling my post "off topic" doesn't release you from your responsibility to act like a human being if possible.

You are utterly transparent. Do something productive, don't come here to take shots at people of good conscience, even though they seem to be a threat to you.

"I am wondering" why you don't simply try to use your brain at times and struggle to understand the easily comprehensible facts, so you don't have to keep "asking" clearly bogus questions.

[naaman fletcher]

13. So,

I asked a question. In between your off topic rants, you have a perfectly good answer: despite your high expectations he has done some things that surprised you.

Good, thank you, that's all you had to say. That is how normal people converse.

Next time drop the two posts worth of derp and we won't have a problem.

[Bacchus4.0]

15. I surmise that those surprising things include maintaining strong relations with the US

and apparently deepening them. Any leftist worth his or her salt would NOT pursue amicable relations with the US.

[Bacchus4.0]

22. In just about 7 yrs. poverty in Peru was cut in half

Under Garcia and continuing under Chavez. Facinating that he has disappointed you since the reduction of poverty is the only statistic chavistas can refer to when expressing their adoration for Hugo. Peru doesn't currently have the great economic and social problems that Ven does. Both Garcia and Humala are leftists.

[Socialistlemur]

18. Obama is moving the big wheel to counter the Cuban moves

The Obama administration is moving its pieces to block the Cuban move in Venezuela. The common wisdom in Washington is that Cuba is trying to get control of Venezuela and create a mini empire. I think they would be fine with the Cuban regime in charge of half of South America, because that dictatorship is morphing to fascism/militarism. But the Cubans in Miami would make a fuss. And the Venezuelan regime is chummy with Iran, China ad Russia. This makes the Cuban move to create Cubazuela using a fascist model completely out of he question. The USA government is now preparing to put on the squeeze. The Cubans grew too big for their britches and this Venezuela invasion is about to choke them, I think.

[ocpagu]

7. Whenever I read the word "strategic partnership" used in a context involving US...

... and a Latin American country, I get worried. It would be great if real partnership - an equal, advantageous relationship between partners - could be established. But generally that expression means, as Laelth noticed, "propping up a rightist, pro-business government and crush a liberal, populist one" and "protecting business interests".

The agreement about MIT seems interesting. On the other hand...

The diplomat stated both leaders will meet on June 11 at the White house and among the issues to be addressed are security, defense, drug trafficking and educational cooperation.

Security, defense, drug trafficking. I understand "expand war on drugs" when I read that.

[Socialistlemur]

19. Don't be naive

The USA doesn't accept other countries as equals. Even larger richer nations like Japan, Germany and Canada realize they are second rate. And the UK is known as the US poodle. What Peru will get is trade, foreign aid and intelligence. The USA gets Humala lined up to back their moves when the real party starts. And hang on to your pants, Brazil is next. Dilma is going to Washington. This is going to be done in fast slashing moves, and the political establishment is aboard. You think Maria Corina at CSIS is bad? They may buy a Nobel Peace Prize for Capriles.

[ocpagu]

23. You're missing the big picture.

I'm aware that the US doesn't accept other countries as equals and that Western Europe / Japan have been historically submissive to US interests (and, therefore, help feeding the superiority myth). But why should Latin America play by that logic?

I agree with you when you say "what Peru will get is trade, foreign aid and intelligence. The USA gets Humala lined up to back their moves when the real party starts". But Brazil is not Peru. And, unlike Peru, Brazil didn't say it wants a "strategic partnership" with the US. It was Joe Biden that proposed such a thing to Brazil.

Brazil will not "back US moves" for a simple reason. It doesn't want to and it doesn't have to. It's not in its interests. And I'm not only talking about the government or the left. The private sector, the pragmatic right are in agreement about that as well, though for different reasons. There are neocons in Brazil of course, and their parrots in the mainstream media, that will not miss an opportunity to worship the US as their supreme god and classify anything out of their neoliberal mindset as "communist" or "bolivarian". They make a lot of noise, but they lack the ability of controlling the foreign policy.

People sometimes confuse Brazil's soft power and diplomatic profile with weakness. It's a gross mistake. The fact that Brazil will not use inflammatory language or talk openly about controversial subjects doesn't mean it will not make its moves. And a great part of the opposition to US interests in Latin America in the last decade came from Brazil, from the Worker's Party government.

Brazil led (and won) the mobilization against US supported Free Trade Area of the Americas. Brazil led (and won) the mobilization against US supported Derbez to head the WTO. Brazil made history when it imposed economic sanctions on the US in 2010 over cotton dispute.

Yes, Dilma is going to Washington, as she has been before, and also as Lula did, before her. Both have also received Bush and Obama in Brazil. You think she'll change her foreign policy because of a dinner? I'm aware the White House must have wonderful chefs, but still...

That's what will happen: Dilma and Obama will make empty speeches about cooperation and strategic alliances to pleasure the crowd, will sign protocols of intentions that won't be put in action or that will have a very limited reach, and everything will stay as it is. Period. That's what happened when Bush came to Brazil, that's what happened when Obama came to Brazil, that's what will happen when Dilma goes to Washington. If the US wants Brazil to really cooperate in any aspect, they will have to give something in return (something really big, such as support for Brazil in the Security Council with veto power - which won't happen) and, even so, that needs to be something within the strategic interests of Brazil. If the US has only empty words to offer or disadvantageous proposals, it will receive only empty words and "no" in return. That's how Brazilian diplomacy works. Literally tit-for-tat.

[Judi Lynn]

24. Beautifully reasoned and expressed thoughts. How could it be otherwise? You make perfect sense.

Thank you for spending the time going through the process of explaining this to someone who could use the focus!

Indeed, Brazil is quite large enough to feel completely competent to make its own decisions, I would think! So good.

Are ya sure? Couldn't ya use a loan or somethin'? Maybe a few rockets!

[naaman fletcher]

27. He said

Tha brazil will sell out as long as the price is high enough. I'm surprised you are ok with that.

[ocpagu]

28. I'm surprised you've understand this way what I've said.

Cooperation requires mutual share. Giving and receiving. You receive options, offers in your life. You take the good ones.

This is how it happens in our personal lives, in our social lives, in domestic politics and foreign relations.

The US has an unbalanced way of "cooperating". It frequently takes more than it promissed and gives less than agreed - or even more than agreed, but not exactly what was agreed.

As problematic as the US foreign policy is, and despite all the other serious issues regarding US domestic politics, no one can deny the potential that it has as a country (and the wonders the right people in power in the US could do for this world). The amount of know-how US possesses in several fields could be a very useful tool for the development of entire regions of our planet - including Latin America and Brazil.

So, of course there would be certain types of cooperation that could be useful for Brazil - and that Brazil would accept if the US was reasonable in their demands. Including support for the country in the international organisms.

It's not a question of selling out for the highest bid. Some options are on the table. Others aren't.

Brazil signing a free trade agreement with the US is not on the table, for example. Won't happen, by any price.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

25. In the world as it is now,

the major powers are: US, China, India, Brazil.
Western Europe is a spent force. So is Japan.
Russia can cause problems from time to time, but allying with them doesn't really help anyone out in a big way, so they're always going to be a fringe player.
The way things are shaking out, gradually, are that the US and India will be on one side and China and Brazil on the other.
You guys need to use China to get into the Security Council. The US wants India there to limit China. China should want you there to limit us.

[Socialistlemur]

29. I would take Russia over India any day

The Russians control the European gas market, they are the first or second largest oil producer, have large foreign reserves, a government budget surplus. Nuclear weapons and an educated population. Putin is a fascist and the economy relies too much on commodity exports, but I'd rather be allied with Russia than India under any foreseeable circumstances. It's also important to factor in that India and Russia are natural allies, because they have common enemies: China and Islam.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

31. Nah, Russia's only claim to a real international presence is its past,

and those nukes. But as an ally they're indigestible. With the possible exception of Iran, no one of any consequence on their borders finds it in their interests to ally with them (Finland is long gone; Poland, which actually is doing pretty decently, wants nothing to do with them; of the rest of the old Eastern bloc, only the Serb remnants are at all friendly with them, and those remnants are powerless and economic basket cases. And then there's Cyprus. Yeesh...), so they bring nothing to the table. As for their economy, it's slightly less hopeless than Venezuela; they do export a few other things besides oil and gas (their armaments will always be in demand...), but Putin is doing as much as possible to make it at least as hopeless in as short a time as possible.
So, no allies of any consequence, no future. Nah, India's better. Has a future, and is big enough to challenge China.
Anyway, the main thrust of the post was future Security Council members, and noting that if we're pushing for India to get on to act as a brake on China, China should, in its interests, do the same re Brazil. Brazil's not big enough to challenge us from a military perspective of course, but their economy is powerful and their diplomacy has been sterling, so they bring with them plenty of allies. Power politics.

[Socialistlemur]

32. Natural allies don't share borders, they share enemies or common aims

You are really misreading the international set up. As a member of the UN Security Council with veto rights, the economic muscle to meddle, nuclear weapons, and a sizable educated population Russia has a huge amount of power. Let me ask you, do you think any country in the developed world would prefer a war with Russia over one with India? If you do, then we must live on separate universes. No allies of any consequence? It doesn't have any less allies than India. Or do you wish to list Bhutan?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

35. They have it now.

The future, not so much. The future has never and will never belong to commodity exporters, no matter how educated their population. In the entire history of the planet, no commodity-dependent country ever amounted to anything on the international scene.
Their membership on the Security Council is a function of their past. Ditto the nukes. Their economic muscle amounts to the ability to shut off gas to Europe. One day that will be gone.
Argentina was once the fifth largest economy on the planet. Built on supplying wheat, corn and beef, it easily rivaled the US Midwest. But if the Midwestern breadbasket was all we had, we wouldn't have gotten very far. Argentina's story has been an object lesson in what would happen if that was all we had; its sad decline is a study in how dependence on commodities is a dead end.
Russia is on the same path. It already counts for a lot less than it used to. As Putin continues the process of burying its educated population (Argentina rejoices in the same, you know) under the weight of his favored oligarchs, they will count for less and less and less. A hundred years from now people will wonder, bemused and perhaps amused, at their membership on the Security Council.

[Socialistlemur]

30. I think brazil will back USA moves due to self interest

Brazil sees itself as an imperial power. That's clear. Whatever it does it wants to have a lot of influence in South America, and this is driven by commercial interests. Brazil's main enemy at this point is the Venecuba hybrid, which has its own agenda apparently driven by Habana. Thus the confluence of USA and Brazilian interests: both want to see the radical hybrid cut down to size.

Brazil may have a bit more patience, and may wish to lure the radicals for commercial gain...but the USA politics are driven a lot by other issues, and the hybrid is in bed with Iran. I'm not really worried about Iran, but in the USA the ayatollahs are really disliked. And that dummy Chavez spent a lot of time hugging the Iranian president and helping thugs like Assad after they had been clearly marked as the enemy. Again I'm not too pleased with USA foreign policy, but it is what it is. I think the USA will bend over backwards and show Brazil it's ok if Brazil wants to control business in South America. The brazilians in turn will buy USA weapons. It's the standard dance step.

What I don't get is what's Raul Castro going to do when he sees the USA circling the wagons and gearing to counter Cuban moves into the South American continent. Cuba has a really weak economy, depends on Venezuelan aid to stay afloat...and therefore Raul Castro can't let go of Venezuela. But the Cubans may be in bed with Obama soon. They'll go the route of Putin and other fascist regimes, have sham elections, put on a democratic varnish, and the USA will gladly deal with them. At this point Castro and Diaz Canel will be like Kadaffi, will move from being the enemy to beloved favorites.

If Cuba goes fascist, as it seems likely to do, and allows multinationals to grab their profits...as it is doing now under the new regime....then the USA and Havana will be buddies. In this great game in which Brasilia, Washington and Havana circle each other with great caution, the Peruvians are a side issue. i think Humala wants to be friendly with everybody just in case, but realizes that after all the USA is the neighborhood's gorilla. they will become "strategic partners" if there's money to be gained.

That's the grim future I fear, just more of the same garbage.

[ocpagu]

33. ?

I'm sorry... are we living in the same world? You're making absolutely no sense at all.

"Brazil sees itself as an imperial power. That's clear."

Either you have a very exotic definition of imperialism or you are still living in the 19th-century. I'm aware some people have been writing and talking about Brazilian "imperialism" lately, but so far I haven't seen a single convincing argument to make that point. Feel free to try. What are the characteristics of the Brazilian imperialism? Could you share an example of Brazil systematically forcing, threatening, or somehow exerting power to make another country change their policy in benefit of Brazil? Could you point to examples of Brazil systematically meddling in the domestic affairs of other countries for its own benefit? Please, tell us. I'm anxious for your answer.

"Whatever it does it wants to have a lot of influence in South America and this is driven by commercial interests"

It already has! It's not a question of "wanting" or not. Have you ever taken a look at the map of South America? Brazil occupies half of it. And it has half of the inhabitants of the continent. Of course it will have a lot of influence in South America! Our president could be Pollyanna, and it would still have a lot of influence! And, of course commercial interests will be involved! Is there any example of a single nation in the history of mankind that has had a foreign policy not influenced by its commercial interests? Commercial interests shape the foreign policy of all countries of the planet, from Cuba to the United States passing by Brazil, Venezuela, India, Palau, Malta, etc, etc, etc.

"Brazil's main enemy at this point is the Venecuba hybrid"

Sure. Cuba is our deadly enemy. That's why we are bringing 6,000 Cuban doctors to Brazil. That's why Brazil's trade with Cuba increased sevenfold over the past 10 years, and also why Brazil is one of the top investors in Cuba. That's also the reason why the Cuban government has repeatedly said it wants to expand the number of mixed Cuban-Brazilian companies.

And Venezuela, of course, is another on the top list of our greatest enemies. That's why trade between Brazil and Venezuela have multiplied by the dozens in the last decade, that's why Brazil openly supported Chávez, quickly recognized Maduro's election and condemned foreign interference and destabilization after Capriles started whining. Because we want to destroy Cuba-Venezuela alliance... makes a lot of sense.

Thus the confluence of USA and Brazilian interests: both want to see the radical hybrid cut down to size.

Nope. No confluence at all. Brazil and US interests couldn't be more different regarding this issue. They are in complete opposite spheres. Brazil has no intention to see the "radical hybrid" (sic) cut down to size. Quite the contrary. As I said before, this is almost a consensus. Not only from the government or the left. It includes Brazilian private sector and the pragmatic right. Take a look at this article:

"Brazilian firms root for Chavez's man in Venezuela vote"

"If Brazil's business leaders could vote in Venezuela's election next month, they would cast their ballots for Hugo Chavez's political heir, acting president Nicolas Maduro."

(...)

"In the near term, a Maduro win would be best," said Jose Augusto de Castro, head of Brazil's Foreign Trade Association."

Do you understand it now? Even if business interests were in fact the only force driving Brazil's foreign policy, Brazil STILL would be in the opposite side of the US regarding Venezuela and Cuba. You are literally out of contact with reality.

"Again I'm not too pleased with USA foreign policy, but it is what it is. I think the USA will bend over backwards and show Brazil it's ok if Brazil wants to control business in South America. The brazilians in turn will buy USA weapons. It's the standard dance step"

No. It is what it was. US influence over South America has been fading with impressive speed. You are talking about the US as if still was that hegemonic, absolute power in the Western Hemisphere of some decades ago. It's not. Brazil doesn't need any kind of agreement with the US to exert influence in South America - much less one that includes buying weapons. Since the US blocked Brazil's sales of weapons to Venezuela because some of the aircraft included American technology, Brazil literally froze acquisitions of US weapons. Brazil is buying weapons from French, Russians and domestic companies. And as additional evidence of lack of convergence between US and Brazil, we have the Pacific Alliance on the making which is nothing more than a US-supported attempt of trying to stop Brazil/Mercosur advances in the continent.

[Socialistlemur]

36. Modern day imperialism is subtle, mercantile

Brazil's imperialism will involve a subtle approach. What they want is export markets, the ability to have their corporations such as Odebrecht do construction work abroad, and serve as a destination for selected exports. For example they may want to have a little bit of Venezuelan heavy oil delivered to Pernambuco, Bolivian gas and lithium, and cheap manufactured goods from Argentina.

They also want secure borders, don't want drug lords in the jungle, and they want the South Atlantic to be their lake. It clashes with Argentina over these points, and this is why Mercosur is dying.

[Judi Lynn]

34. Don't you ever bother to follow events in any form at all?

[center]





[/center]

[Socialistlemur]

37. I sure do

Right after he was elected, Maduro flew to Havana. Then he returned, was briefed about food shortages and scheduled an impromptu trip to Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. I hear Dilma was upset because there had been no prior notice, so Maduro landed in Brasilia and she didn't see him until a few hours later. They really didn't have much to talk about. Maduro was trying to get urgent food deliveries but he didn't want to have to pay right away. Brazilian business owners have had a hard time getting paid by both the Venezuelan government and Venezuelan companies because there's a dollar shortage.

I think it's important to understand that photographs don't mean much. I saw a photo of Kerry with Jaua in Antigua. Do you really think they are friends?

[Judi Lynn]

38. Do you have a link to share regarding Dilma Rousseff's reaction to Maduro's trip to Brazilia?

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Of course the corporate media didn't inform, which is a surprise as they would never miss a chance to publish information like that.

Is there a link to the articles claiming Maduro wanted "food deliveries" without payment? Why not share it with the Democratic Underground's Latin America forum?

Regarding photos, do you have any explanation for right-wing posts bearing time after time images of Hugo Chavez and the President of Zimbabwe? Chavez and the leader of Iran?

A lot can be grasped regarding context, and awareness of the relationships between the people involved, to fall back upon, when a deeper understanding is helpful.

As many of us know, Lula and Chavez met every three months, and had been doing this for a long time. We also have wonderful quotes from Lula regarding Chavez. We have also learned Dilma Rousseff has mentioned continuing these meetings to Nicolas Maduro, and he agrees they should continue.

[ocpagu]

39. Maduro was received with military honors by Dilma.

"Though this is considered under protocol as a regular working visit, Dilma offered Maduro a reception that included the presence of a military band and other homages typical of State visits.

The new Venezuelan leader walked up the ramp of Planalto Palace around 4:40 PM and was received by Dilma with a hug. The president was waiting for him together with the Minister o Foreign Relations, Antonio Patriota. Both presidents heard their countries' anthems and then headed to Dilma's office for a private meeting."

http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/antes-de-ser-recebido-por-dilma-maduro-se-encontra-com-lula-8344230

The part about Maduro landing in Brasilia and waiting hours for Dilma to see him is total bullshit. It was actually Dilma who kept waiting for him (40 minutes!). That because, before meeting with her, Maduro met Lula. When he came to Planalto Palace, Dilma was at the entrance, waiting for him.





Dilma gave Maduro the same treatment all foreign leaders receive on State visits. Including Chávez and Obama.





And they also probably have a lot to talk. Their private meeting lasted for two hours. For a comparison, the last private meeting Dilma had with Obama lasted 30 minutes.

[Judi Lynn]

40. Your REAL post is a treasure! Well, well, well. Very illuminating, by all standards.

The real information, and with photos, says it all.

Can't thank you enough!
Score a big one for the good guys!

[Socialistlemur]

41. What does Dilma really think?

Dilma's reaction to Maduro's trip was communicated to me by a Brazilian friend. I think we all understand presidential trips are announced ahead of time. If you go back over the press announcements you will see there was very little time between the first release and Maduro's departure. Therefore I tend to believe my friend.

Here's a Spanish link discussing this issue, I don't like to post this in an English language forum, but as you can imagine there's a lot more available in Spanish

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/05/09/actualidad/1368112879_669239.html

Regarding photos of Chavez with other leaders, I don't pay attention to those. Politicians will shake hands with a vampire if they have to. Those photos are posed, and they can be misleading. What's important is what happens before and after.

I usually don't post references because I'm lazy. But here's a couple of items you should read...then figure out what's really going on....

http://www.brazilcouncil.org/sites/default/files/BUSBC_DefenseReport.PDF

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/03/15/u-s-air-force-sides-with-brazils-embraer-in-fighter-plane-dispute/

http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-42081366233464/

The rumor has it that Dilma's visit to Washington later this year will include a series of commercial and strategic agreements....

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-31/news/sns-rt-brazil-usabiden-pix-tvl2n0eb13p-20130531_1_president-dilma-rousseff-anthony-boadle-brasilia-technology-brazil