Condi's Divide and Rule Strategy in South America

[Joanne98]

When you can't stamp out progressive social change, the next step is to try to desperately derail it or otherwise water it down. That's exactly the kind of strategy being pursued right now by the likes of Condoleezza Rice, who recently concluded a South American tour designed to ostracize the bad countries, namely Venezuela, Bolivia, and increasingly Argentina, and to cultivate ties with the good countries such as Brazil and Chile.

Rice and her colleagues are alarmed because, notwithstanding their ideological differences, South American nations appear to be moving towards extensive political and economic integration. The only question now is which economic development model will predominate within the region and what the eventual complexion of integration will look like.

The vehicle for closer integration could well be Mercosur, a trading bloc of South American countries. At present the bloc's members include Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Venezuela is in the process of joining the bloc, and a number of countries including Bolivia and Chile are associate members. Mercosur nations have declared their intention of forming a South American Community of Nations modeled after the European Union.

The bloc is beginning to take on political projects rather than pursuing strictly economic objectives. For example, Mercosur now has a European Union-styled regional parliament in Montevideo, and many Uruguayans hope their capital might evolve into the "Brussels of South America." In a repudiation of Washington's diktat, Mercosur nations openly debated what the future of free trade should be in South America during a heady 2007 summit.

In line with his usual penchant for over the top rhetorical flourishes, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela stressed the need for Mercosur to be "decontaminated" from the ravages of neo-liberal economics. Mercosur, noted the Venezuelan leader, was an "outdated mechanism and is leaking like a sieve." The trade bloc, Chávez added, was "founded in the context of a free- market economic model and offers integration for the élites, for business, for transnational companies, not integration for the peoples." Such remarks have riled the Bush White House which has come to distrust Mercosur, an entity which has acted to block the corporate-friendly Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Having woken up to the fact that its free trade and neo-liberal agenda for the region lies in tatters, and that wielding a Big Stick to defang its enemies cannot work politically in the present milieu, the Bush White House is now pursuing stealthy diplomacy. Rice's strategy is to divide and rule, to contain radical social change and to steer it within acceptable boundaries.

http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff04032008.html

[Demeter]

1. And It Isn't Working, Either, Is It, Madame Secretary?

You see, we get news here, not just pap and propaganda.

[Diclotican]

2. To little, to late

The train are already out of the station, and Madame Secretary was not there when you was invited to come along. This time you can't possible believe that CIA and other should manage to destroy the future of South America longer.. The time US could put dictators, tyranny's and other devil people to power are pretty soon over.. Ms Rice, get over it, and go for the truth, Not that NEO-EXTREMIST you and your colleagues want the south american to experience.. The day of the Monroe-doctrine are coming to an end..

:evilgrin:

Diclotican

[Peace Patriot]

3. It's a hit piece on Chavez, and puff piece for Condi.

He tries to disguise the puff piece for Condi by calling her strategy "divide and rule." But he'a actually FOR her strategy and presents it in a very positive light. His hostility to Chavez is not disguised at all. At every point, he chooses the most negative word he can to describe what Chavez has said or done, even in neutral contexts--and he omits highly relevant facts. Kozloff almost approaches Associated Puke levels of Chavez bashing.

For instance:

"In line with his usual penchant for over the top rhetorical flourishes, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela stressed the need for Mercosur to be 'decontaminated' from the ravages of neo-liberal economics. Mercosur, noted the Venezuelan leader, was an 'outdated mechanism and is leaking like a sieve.' The trade bloc, Chávez added, was 'founded in the context of a free- market economic model and offers integration for the élites, for business, for transnational companies, not integration for the peoples.' Such remarks have riled the Bush White House which has come to distrust Mercosur, an entity which has acted to block the corporate-friendly Free Trade Area of the Americas." --Kozloff (emphasis added)

But are Chavez's allegations true? Have "neo-liberal economics" ravaged South America? Does South America need to be "decontaminated" because of it? These things are quite true. Kozloff even admits it in the next paragraph (that the U.S. neoliberal agenda is "in tatters"). Why then call telling the truth "over the top rhetorical flourishes"?

And here it is again: "Rhetorically, Chávez rails against the market and globalization, thus sparking fear in Brazil that the Venezuelan leader will scare off investors from flocking to the region."

He "rails against the market"? Hell, American homeowners are starting to do that! But it is not "railing." It is not "bombast." It is not "rhetorical." It is a very good, legitimate, elected leader talking about the real human pain of the vast poor majority of South America, which has been totally fucked over by "the market" and "globalisation."

More such Chavez-bashing: "In order to advance Venezuelan interests, Chávez provides development assistance and oil at discount prices to sympathetic regimes in the hemisphere. He has sought to bring Venezuela into Mercosur and hopes to subvert the bloc from within , presumably by shifting the entity's focus from free trade to more equitable, reciprocal trade."

The first statement is not only inaccurate--Chavez has also provided cheap oil to the poor in the U.S., which is not "a sympathetic regimes in the hemisphere"--but Kozloff also chooses the most divisive-sounding motive--of many possible motives--that Chavez is doing this "to advance Venezuelan interests." Yeah, that could and should be part of Chavez policy. He is, after all, the President of Venezuela! But he may also be implementing a wise, generous, compassionate policy, aimed at relieving suffering. Why say that it is only "to advance Venezuela's interests"? Why go out of your way to say that, when you didn't need to ascribe a motive at all? Or why not use words like "likely" or "seems," when you are describing someone else's motives--something you cannot know?

Kozloff then uses the word "subvert" to describe Chavez's interest in Venezuela joining Mercosur. His interest is not to better Mercosur, not to influence it for the good; it is to "subvert" it. "Subvert the bloc from within" is Joe McCarthy anti-communist crusade language, which colors Chavez's motives and makes them appear negative. An anti-war politician might run for Congress in order to "subvert" Congress "from within" on its support for the war, but is that the right way to put it? What would you be trying to imply? That the politician is unamerican, is devious, is opposed to something that is actually a good thing, and is trying to weaken the institution (rather than strengthening it, by bringing it more into alignment with the overwhelming views of the American people). To state this without such coloration, you would say that the politician intends to "work within" Congress to change war policy--not "subvert" it "from within." And how does Kozloff know this--that Chavez's intention is to "subvert" (weaken, undermine) Mercosur, and not to "work within" Mercosur for better, more socially just policy?

This is over-the-top, rhetorically flourished writing!

And here is another. Kozloff's article is just rife with these hits on Chavez.

"In Brazil, the biggest thorn in Chávez's side has been the Senate, which was outraged by Venezuela's refusal to renew Radio Caracas Televisión's broadcast license; the station was a hotbed of opposition sentiment. Characteristically, Chávez flew off the handle and accused the Brazilian Senate of being subservient to the United States."

"Characteristically"? I don't think Chavez has ever "flown off the handle"--at least never that I could tell, from following events pretty closely. Indeed, his temper is characteristically mild--doesn't hold grudges, doesn't try to "get" his political enemies, even forgave the coup plotters of 2002, and sent all the Colombian foot soldiers who had been assembled in Venezuela to foment another coup and to assassinate him, back to Colombia without prosecuting them for their illegal weapons caches. Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, called him "the great peacemaker" for his actions after the U.S./Colombia bombing/incursion against Ecuador, which almost caused a war. No mention of that by Kozloff.

And consistent with the above, Kozloff combines this gratuitous lie--that Chavez "characteristically" flies off the handle--with a big black hole of disinformation about RCTV. He says that RCTV was "a hotbed of opposition sentiment." But there are many corporate broadcasters in Venezuela that are rightwing hotbeds. Chavez only denied a license renewal to ONE of them. Why? Because that station, RCTV, had actively participated in the violent rightwing military coup against the legitimate, elected government, in 2002, which suspended the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights, as well as kidnapping Chavez and threatening his life. They hosted this coup on RCTV! They doctored videotape to make it appear that the Chavez government was shooting protesters.* Chavez may have personally forgiven the coup plotters, but he could not permit the PUBLIC airwaves in Venezuela to be used for ORGANIZING a coup against the government! Good Lord, any democracy in the world would be more than justified in pulling that license.

So, is it "flying off the handle" to say that those who echoed the Bushite line on this were serving the U.S.--or was it accurate? Kozloff sides with the Bushites and their echoers, and doesn't even ask if their condemnation of Chavez was justified. He himself is re-echoing this whole bullshit line that Chavez somehow opposes free speech--Chavez, who somehow survives, with huge popularity, in the most virulently fascist corporate media culture in the hemisphere, and perhaps in the world. And this supposed "leftist"--Kozloff--furthermore doesn't ask the most important question: IS it "free speech" to have global corporate predator news/entertainment monopolies controlling virtually all of the public airwaves in a country (or, indeed, in our hemosphere)?

I just want to mention, in passing, Kozloff's failure to convey the genuinely warm and supportive friendship between Chavez and Brazil's President, Lula da Silva. Kozloff seems to go out of his way to mis-characterize this relationship. I think that is very wrong--and serves Condi Rice's "divide and rule" agenda yet again. He is also does a number on Nestor Kirchner--painting him in the worst light possible--but I won't get into that, because there is something worse in this article--or not in this article.

He portrays Condi Rice's strategy in South America as a sort of "kinder, gentler" Bushitism. He says the Bushites realize they have lost South America and are now content to play little economic games, trying to separate the good left from the bad left (the more "free trade"-friendly left--Brazil, Chile--from the more socialist left--Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina). As if Bushite activities in South America were a sort of ladies tea party, that rules the social roost, but doesn't really affect people all that much.

This is such bullshit, I can't believe it. Condi Rice's little tea party is backed with lethal power. The biggest black hole in this article is the complete absence of one word about the huge Bush-instigated military build-up, with $5.5 BILLION of our tax dollars, in Colombia, and the menace that this presents to the entire region, but most especially to Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina.

Colombia has the one of the worst human rights records in the world--with recent slaughters of union leaders and peaceful protesters, and a history over the last half decade of the murders of thousands of union leaders, political leftists, peasant farmers, human rights workers and journalists. This is Condi Rice's and George Bush's and Donald Rumsfeld's** good buddy in South America, and virtually their only ally. And they mean to use it, and have used it, for hostilities against the Bolivarian democracies. Their economic and military goals are to destabilize these countries, topple their democratic, elected, leftist leaders, install fascist regimes, and regain global corporate predator control of the Andes oil fields.

Not one word about this in Kozloff's article.

The Bushites' strategy is not "divide and rule." It is "divide and conquer." Kozloff treats Condi as if she were some sort of shepherdess, who wants to herd all these unimportant little countries into her flock. Her "rule." He leaves out the "conquer" part, where they're all herded into a stadium and summarily executed. That is the Bushites' habit. That is their intention. That is the design behind all their actions in South America. They are failing in Iraq--it will never be stable enough to steal the oil. China stopped them in Iran. So now they are after the oil in South America. And it ain't going to be no tea party of "divide and rule." It is going to be a war, this year. The first shots have already been fired in Ecuador. This is what all the Bushite lies, and psyops, and disinformation, and dirty tricks, and recent destabilization efforts (including Exxon Mobil's recent effort to freeze $12 billion in Venezuela's assets) have been about. The relentless lie that Chavez is a "dictator." The more recent lie that Chavez and President Rafael Correa of Ecuador are "terrorist-lovers." All this crap in the Associated Puke press. It is preparation for war in South America--just as surely as the lies about WMDs were preparation for war on Iraq.

The Bushites are going to lose this war--and leave us with a legacy of yet more hatred, added to their other legacy of a $10 TRILLION deficit. But when did that ever stop these war criminals?

----------

*See "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" (at YouTube, or www.axisoflogic.com)

**"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

Also recommended: www.venezuelanalysis.com, and www.BoRev.net.