Reply #105: Some comments on this Mr.Wiggles and SFexpat2000 exchange, re alliances in

[Peace Patriot]

South America.

Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Nicaragua form a quite solid block of strong allies, evidenced on many issues, and many social justice and other cooperative projects, as well as by strong, personal friendships among these leftist leaders. Not sure about Ortega, but Chavez (Venezuela), Morales (Bolivia), Correa (Ecuador) and the Kirchners (Argentina) are close friends. In fact, when the Bushites sent down word that Latin American leaders must "isolate" Chavez, Nestor Kirchner replied, "But he is my brother!" Venezuela helped bail Argentina out of World Bank debt--the seed of the Bank of the South (a major new institution aimed at regional self-determination). Argentina is now well on its way to recovery, and is a healthy trading partner for Venezuela, Brazil and other countries. Argentina just last week signed a food for oil trade deal with Venezuela. And, a few weeks before that, President Cristina Fernandez da Kirchner, strongly criticized the Bush Junta for its absurd "suitcase full of money" caper out of Miami--the goal of which was to "divide and conquer" Venezuela-Argentina. The Bank of the South has now been launched, and has many partners, including even a center-right government like Paraguay, which can see its advantages. It has basically driven the World Bank loan sharks out of the region. Hugo Chavez, and the Chavez government, have been pioneers in establishing regional independence, and are greatly admired for doing so. The Chavistas are very legitimate and acknowledged leaders of the South American social justice movement--the left, the majority!

The total of leftist governments--which covers nearly the whole continent--includes Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Nicaragua, AND Brazil, Uruguay and Chile. Paraguay may well go leftist this year (the beloved "bishop of the poor," Fernando Lugo, is running for president, and is ahead in the polls). Peru is currently run by corrupt "free traders" with a sort of leftist tinge, but a real leftist Bolivarian came out of nowhere last year, and, with no money and no experience, knocked the rightwing candidate out of the race, in the primary, with 30% of the vote, then increased his vote to 45% in the general election. I think, when the "free traders" are done with ruining Peru's economy, the Bolivarian left will be back and win the next election. One more change that has occurred--Guatemala just elected its first progressive government, ever. The new government's leftist leanings are not fully clear, but two of their policies point that way: a PEACEFUL, rather than a "police state," approach to the "war on drugs," and investigation of the genocidal crimes of previous governments. And, finally, Calderon (rightwing) in Mexico won his election (if he did) by a hairsbreadth--0.05%--with a solid, Bolivarian-type leftist, Lopez-Obrador, as his opponent. At least half of Mexico is way over to the left (and that's just counting voters--many poor folks can't or don't vote).

Of the OTHER leftist governments in South America--Brazil, Uruguay and Chile--Brazil's president, Lula da Silva, has been very friendly to Chavez. After Chavez's "devil" remark about Bush at the UN, and just weeks before the Venezuelan 2006 election (an election that had been targeted by an assassination plot against Chavez, hatched in Colombia), Lulu went out of his way to endorse Chavez, by visiting Venezuela for a big ceremonial opening of the new Orinoco Bridge (a joint Venezuela-Brazil project). And Lulu has frequently defended Chavez against Bushite attacks. But Lulu has been more compromising on "free trade" agreements, on bending to BushCo on biofuel production (bad environmental policy), and also has a contingent of rather rabid anti-Chavistas in the legislature. Brazil, of course, is in some ways a rival to Venezuela--both are powerful players in South America, with big economies. But it is a friendly rivalry--at least as far as Lulu is concerned.

Uruguay's Tamare Vasquez (a leftist) specifically turned Bush down, on "free trade," when Bush visited in March 06--bringing his bribes, bullyings and kneecappings to "divide and conquer" the South American Left--but Vasquez made a lot of Uruguayans very unhappy by inviting Bush at all. As for Chile, Michelle Batchelet (leftist who was tortured by the fascist junta) was at first inclined to compromise on Bush vs. Chavez issues. Chile abstained on Venezuela's effort to have its turn in a UN Security Council seat--thus, the seat went to compromise candidate Panama. But Batchelet was severely criticized for this--even by her own ambassador to Venezuela--another indication of majority sentiment in South America, on Chavez. Batchelet has since settled a long term dispute with (strong Chavez ally) Bolivia, by signing an agreement giving Bolivia port access. This was a big sore point in Bolivia--even though the war about it was over a hundred years ago. And it indicates increasing unity, and cooperation on peaceful solutions, among all of these leftist countries.

The huge effort of Chavez, Correa, the Kirchners, and also the President of France, Nicholas Sarkovy, and others, to END the Colombian civil war--starting with these hostage release negotiations at which Chavez was so successful--is part of this trend of peaceful negotiation, and a positive, new, cooperative approach--i.e., not letting the U.S. "divide and conquer." The Bushites (using their tool, Uribe) bombing inside Ecuador, and invasion with troops, and slaughtering of the FARC hostage negotiator, was aimed, first of all, at punishing Ecuador for electing Rafael Correa (friend, ally of Chavez). But its larger aim was to implement the Rumsfeld "chaos and opportunity" war strategy--Rumsfeld's M.O. (--and he is behind this, believe me!). Kill people, get everybody up in arms, stir up every conflict, flood the place with armed soldiers and paramilitaries, stoke up hatred, destroy all hopes for peace and diplomacy--and then use the "scattered ant colony" result to topple local power structures and grab resources--and to make a lot of war profits in the process.

Ecuador and Venezuela had exactly the right reaction to this Rumsfeld warmonger strategy: Condemn it, call it out, and demonstrate your ability to mobilize quickly, to counter aggression. To call this "bluster" or to blame CHAVEZ--or Correa--for wanting war, or in any way inviting it, is to greatly misunderstand what Uribe did, and what a threat the Bushites are. It is to not "walk in Chavez's shoes"--Chavez who has had a Bushite bull's eye target on his back since 2002. And it is to underestimate how much these two leaders--of countries that border Colombia--are worried about Colombia's military and paramilitaries, Blackwater (active in Colombia), and Bush/U.S. invasion. They have EVERY REASON to be extremely worried. As I mentioned above, last year, a plot to assassinate Chavez was hatched within Colombia's military, among people with close ties to Uribe. Uribe had to apologize to Chavez for it (and every Latin American leader knew about it--from Calderon to Lulu, and MENTIONED it to Bush when he visited, in public, in their references to respecting Venezuela's sovereignty!) And NOW what is Chavez to think of that Uribe apology? Now that Uribe has once again bent over for the Bushites, and invaded Ecuador?

You may call Chavez a 'hot head' or whatever. But WHO inspired the Bank of the South--which they are all now joining? WHO put Argentina back on its feet--and also helped Ecuador and Bolivia to get out of the clutches of "first world" loan sharks? WHO has given South America its first ideas and hopes of self-determination in over a hundred years? WHO has taken on Bush, whom most of them hate and despise (--and if the leaders don't, their people do)? WHO has set the agenda of social justice? WHO has shown how it can be done?

If you are going to run down the middle, and do a little bit of social justice here, and a little bit U.S. dominated "free trade" there--like Chile and Brazil--you need a strong leftist wind at your back, to get that little bit of social justice done. I think Lulu and Batchelet are genuine in their social justice goals, but have big, complex, economies, with multiple ties to the U.S (not just oil), that they have to do it in. It is no bad deal for them to have Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina pulling strongly to the left. And it is no bad deal for them either, to have these other countries in confrontation with the Bushites, so they can walk between them and get better deals out of the Bushites for their own countries--which is exactly what Lulu did on biofuels. This is neither good nor bad, in my opinion (--although corporate biofuel production is going to kill the planet - can't go that way). In general, it is merely REALITY. It is how things work, in politics, and among political leaders. When the Bushites were strong-arming Batchelet, on the Venezuelan UN Security Council seat, I was rooting for Batchelet to get what she could for her people. If she can't do the right thing, do the next best thing--USE the situation to the peoples' advantage. (I never found out what she got--but I hope she got something good out of these dirtbag torturers.)

In the bigger picture, the Chavez government, and the Bolivarian block, have been enormously beneficial to Latin America. Even the rightwing Calderon used their pressure from the left, to demand more Mexican autonomy over U.S. "war on drugs" funds. That may not turn out to be so good, but it does exemplify the INFLUENCE of the Bolivarian Left on events. And, for the most part, it has been extremely positive. And I don't think that Bush/Uribe's provocation--and Chavez's and Correa's strong defensive response--is going to change that at all. It is, instead, going to strengthen South American alliances, and show this new leftist leadership of the continent at its best--as independent actors and peacemakers, and as the new leadership, and the future, of the western hemisphere.