Correa talks Obama, Honduras and Iran

[Downwinder]

Euronews video interview with President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. It is conducted in Spanish, but is translated simultaneously into English. Below the video there is a transcript of the interview in English.

http://www.euronews.net/2009/12/14/correa-talks-obama-honduras-and-iran/

[Bacchus39]

1. some interesting "highlights"

euronews: But President Obama has raised hope across the world, so what’s going on?

Correa: What’s going on? I appreciate president Obama a lot he looks like a very good person, very nice, very sensible and intelligent. I think he has very good intentions. But he heads a society an economy and a political apparatus that moves very slowly and is difficult to change direction.

euronews: Are you saying the president of the United States has no input into the decision to create seven military bases in Colombia?

Correa: Yes, probably.



euronews: “Do you think that is a difference between the Bush and Obama administrations?

Correa: Of course, very few things can be worse than Bush, but’s its not enough, it is not enough to change the person. I maintain that President Obama is skilled and intelligent with good intentions, but the US policy towards Latin America has not changed.

euronews: But the seven bases.

Correa: That’s the reason why

euronews: The seven bases were finalised under Obama, not Bush.

Correa: So it is and the Honduras situation took place under Obama. Under Bush there were no coup’s in Latin America.

euronews: So isn’t it a paradox? Bush looks to hold sensible policies for Latin America.

Correa: Its not a question of being sensible, but it is a matter of handling the apparatus. All the apparatus backed Bush alongside the pressure groups that control the United States.
This is not the case with Obama. There is a big resistance of racist groups and powerful economic bodies against Obama because they reject the idea of an American president with African origins.



euronews: But isn’t the fact they are developing an atomic weapon annoying you? is it possible to deal with Tehran?

Correa: First of all, they have not admitted they are building a bomb, secondly the same rule should apply to everyone. I don’t believe there are good and evil.

euronews: Did Ecuador receieve 55 million euros from Iran? is that the case?

Correa: I think we signed an agreement for a loan of close to 70 million euros. I don’t know if its been activated yet. They haven’t done it yet. They haven’t done it yet, but we will get it.”

[VanW]

2. "Under Bush there were no coups in Latin America"

Uhh...Haiti??

And Venezuela. For 48 hours.

Plus a stolen election in Mexico.


I'm just saying!

[Bacchus39]

3. well, thats what Rafa says n/t

s

[EFerrari]

4. Right you are. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

5. I like how Correa thinks. He tries to go to the heart of a problem, outside the

framework of "conventional wisdom" --which is, of course, largely dictated by the corpo-fascist media and the CIA.

For instance, why shouldn't Iran have the bomb if the U.S. and others do? Why the double standard? He rejects the "good vs evil" framework that the U.S. so hypocritically promotes, and sees things like this as a matter of sovereignty. He doesn't think anyone has a 'right' to build a nuclear bomb, and wants the world to be rid of all of them. But GIVEN the U.S. possession of nuclear weapons, and that of others, why single out Iran as a country that can't do this?

Another for instance: The reporter asks: Isn't it destabilizing for Ecuador to have diplomatic relations with Iran while the U.S. is at loggerheads with Iran? Correa laughs, and says that Colombia has had diplomatic relations with Iran for years--why aren't they being criticized? "The United States did not ask Latin America for authorisation to establish diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia that is not even a democracy. But nothing happens.”

He's so logical!

On the FARC, he says that the FARC established one camp on the Ecuador side of the Ecuador/Colombia border in the Amazon jungle and somehow that makes Ecuador and "accessory" to the FARC. "Can we be considered to be a FARC accessory because there is a one FARC camp on the territory. So the biggest FARC accessory should be the Colombian President Uribe as in Colombia there are 200 FARC camps...". He opposes the Colombian military/paramilitary strategy against the FARC which has failed for 50 years to solve the conflict, says it's a waste of billions of dollars on brothers killing brothers, and urges a peace settlement.

So sensible!

[Bacchus39]

6. I don't want Iran to have the bomb, and Rafa says

he doesn't think Obama could prevent the US-Colombia agreement for using military bases because he doesn't control the Pentagon, but on the other hand says the US could have reversed the coup in Honduras in 48 hours.

you don't see the contradiction there PP??? do you support Correa undermining Obama's leadership??

[Peace Patriot]

7. Yeah, it does seem contradictory, doesn't it? You're right.

However, he does make a distinction between the U.S. and Obama. He says "the U.S." could have stopped the putsch in 48 hours, if it had wanted to. He doesn't say Obama could have done it. I think he's talking about the Pentagon, the war profiteers, the Bushwhacks in Congress (who seem to be running U.S. foreign policy in Latin America), and our global corporate predators--the "apparatus," as he calls it. THEY could have stopped it. Later, he says that Obama is well-intentioned but is being undermined. I do think he means to make this distinction--between what he thinks of the U.S. and what he thinks of Obama--although we may have lost something in the translation. His later remarks about Obama are not all that clear.

"Correa undermining Obama's leadership"? That's an odd question. Correa doesn't have the power to do that. And Latin American has its own leaders. I think he just wants the U.S. to stop messing around with its client states--like Honduras and Colombia--because that is very dangerous for the independent countries. The Honduras coup creates a precedent for a return of the horrible rightwing military dictatorships of former decades. And a big U.S. military buildup in Colombia is a direct threat to Ecuador. What Correa needs to know is, who is in charge in the U.S.?--and that is a hard question to answer. Because of lack of leadership, or weak leadership, or complicity--I really don't know which--Obama is supporting this huge U.S. military buildup in Correa's neighbor, Colombia, a country with one of the worst human rights records on earth, which has been extremely hostile to Ecuador. And Obama didn't want to, or couldn't, stop the coup in Honduras.

Anyway, it doesn't "undermine" Obama's "leadership" to call him on his weakness. Possibly it could buck him up. Really, he needs to show leadership ON THIS END, on his responsibilities as U.S. president, to curtail war profiteers and fight back against rightwing forces HERE--like Jim DeMint, John McCain, John Negroponte, Otto Reich, all the Honduras coup players HERE, including Chiquita, Gap and all the corporate players.

I know one of the things Obama said--exactly what you have just said--is something like, "They (Latin American leaders) don't want the U.S. to interfere, but they want us to solve Honduras." That is really a smart-ass answer, because the U.S. runs Honduras, and everybody knows it.

I don't mean to say that your comment was smartass. But I think Obama's was. It was very like the comment of a teenager trying to get out of responsibility for something--acting the "sea lawyer."

What I'd like to say to Obama is: Grow up, Barack! You're the emperor now. Take charge! Stop making excuses!

[Bacchus39]

8. you just did what Correa did.

you just agreed with Correa that Obama doesn't control the Pentagon and then you criticized him for not "solving" the Honduras crisis. so if Obama doesn't control the military, then how is he supposed to solve the crisis??

Not that I agree with you at all of course.


so how is Obama supposed to solve the Honduras crisis if, according to you and Rafa, he really isn't Commander-in-Chief?

[Peace Patriot]

9. As I said, I don't think the interview is entirely clear, but it appears to me that Correa

is making an important distinction between "the U.S." and President Obama. He is saying that "the U.S." (that is, our real rulers--the war profiteers in the Pentagon, U.S.-based global corporate predators and their supporting rightwing forces here)--could have put down the Honduran coup in 48 hours, but didn't want to, and that Obama doesn't have the power to overrule them, on that issue, and on the issue of the big U.S. military buildup in Colombia (and other aggressive actions--he mentions the U.S. reconstitution of the 4th Fleet ). He thinks Obama is sincere in wanting a peaceful, respectful U.S. policy toward Latin America, but doesn't have the power to implement it.

I am not sure I would give Obama such a charitable assessment, at this point. I am no longer sure of his good intentions. And if he has good intentions, I am not at all sure that he has the power to implement them. I agree with Correa on that. Obama's Secretary of State just threatened the leftist governments of Latin America for daring to establish diplomatic relations with Iran, ignoring the fact--as Correa points out--that Colombia has had relations with Iran for years. She said they should be concerned about "consequences"! What the hell is she doing saying something like that? It was not only threatening, it was gratuitously insulting--not to mention hypocritical. Does Obama approve of threatening and insulting Latin American countries? I don't know. That is not his stated policy, but that is what is happening--on pretty much all fronts. The Pentagon is surrounding Venezuela's main oil region with numerous new U.S. military bases, which also threaten Ecuador; and a U.S. client state, Honduras, has just suffered a violent rightwing military coup, with inexplicably powerful, Bushwhack politicians openly supporting this coup and subverting the President's stated policy on it, the Pentagon aiding the coupsters in removing the elected president from the country, and Obama's Sec of State conniving to prolong the coup.

Who is in charge of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America? I really don't know.

[Bacchus39]

10. Is there an Office of War Profiteering, Global Predation, and Rightwing Exploitation

where Correa can take his grievance to so they can vote on whether to restore Zelaya?? I didn't hear about a vote or declaration from that Office after the coup.

[Peace Patriot]

11. If you are talking about the Honduran legislators' vote on denying Z his rightful ELECTED office,

those were the same jerks who endorsed his violent removal from the country (in violation of a specific provision of the Honduran constitution that forbids the forced exile of any Honduran citizen), and who trumped up charges against him, in his absence, based on a forged letter of resignation.

If that the kind of "vote" you are referring to?

What ARE you referring to? I really don't understand your comment very well.

Anybody wants "the Office of War Profiteering, Global Predation, and Rightwing Exploitation," they couldn't go far wrong by applying to the U.S. State Department--but they wouldn't get much help on matters of justice, peace and democracy.

[Bacchus39]

12. Zelaya wanted the Congress to decide on his return

the Congress rejected reinstating Zelaya. Was Zelaya referring to another Congress somewhere else? Cuba, or Venezuela maybe??

Obama is in charge of foreign policy even if you and Rafa don't like it and keep trying to undermine him. Other than the military use of bases in Colombia which I don't support, but also am not worried about an invasion of Venezuela, I am quite comfortable with Obama's policies in Latin America.

He is re-engaging with rational leaders in Brazil, Chile, Argentina continuing strong ties with old allies in Colombia and Peru, and learning its best just to ignore the psychos in Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador and Bolivia.

[Braulio]

13. I like Obama but...

He needs to do better in the way he handles the Zionists and the Middle East wars. But I'm willing to hold my tongue for a while, to see if he does get control over the imperial army machine Bush created.

[Bacchus39]

14. definitely want out of Iraq, and eternal drug war transcends administrations

I would like to see some intelligible health care reform but in regards to Latin America, besides the Colombia bases which is part of the aforementioned dumb drug war, I see him pursuing practical relationships in Latin America. Immigration will probably flare up next year, we'll see how he handles that one.

much better than his predecessor but nothing stellar either thus far but I am willing to give him some time. its not exactly like the alternatives will be better.