Thursday, December 31, 2009

CIA Agents assassinated in Afghanistan worked for “contractor” active in Venezuela, Cuba





At least eight U.S. citizens were killed on a CIA operations base in Afghanistan this past Wednesday, December 30. A suicide bomber infiltrated Forward Operating Base Chapman located in the eastern province of Khost, which was a CIA center of operations and surveillance. Official sources in Washington have confirmed that the eight dead were all civilian employees and CIA contractors.

Fifteen days ago, five U.S. citizens working for a U.S. government contractor, Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), were also killed in an explosion at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) office in Gardez. That same day, another bomb exploded outside the DAI offices in Kabul, although no serious injuries resulted.

The December 15 incident received little attention, although it occurred just days after the detention of a DAI employee in Cuba, accused of subversion and distribution of illegal materials to counterrevolutionary groups. President and CEO of DAI, Jim Boomgard, issued a declaration on December 14 regarding the detention of a subcontractor from his company in Cuba, confirming that, “the detained individual was an employee of a program subcontractor, which was implementing a competitively issued subcontract to assist Cuban civil society organizations.” The statement also emphasized the “new program” DAI is managing for the U.S. government in Cuba, the “Cuba Democracy and Contingency Planning Program”. DAI was awarded a $40 million USD contract in 2008 to help the U.S. government “support the peaceful activities of a broad range of nonviolent organizations through competitively awarded grants and subcontracts” in Cuba.

On December 15, DAI published a press release mourning “project personnel killed in Afghanistan”. “DAI is deeply saddened to report the deaths of five staff associated with our projects in Afghanistan…On December 15, five employees of DAI’s security subcontractor were killed by an explosion in the Gardez office of the Local Governance and Community Development (LGCD) Program, a USAID project implemented by DAI.”

DAI also runs a program in Khost where the December 30 suicide bombing occurred, although it has yet to be confirmed if the eight U.S. citizens killed were working for the major U.S. government contractor. From the operations base in Khost, the CIA remotely controls its selective assassination program against alleged Al Qaeda members in Pakistan and Afghanistan using drone (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) Predator planes.
A high-level USAID official confirmed two weeks ago that the CIA uses USAID’s name to issue contracts and funding to third parties in order to provide cover for clandestine operations. The official, a veteran of the U.S. government agency, stated that the CIA issues such contracts without USAID’s full knowledge.

Since June 2002, USAID has maintained an Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Venezuela, through which it has channeled more than $50 million USD to groups and individuals opposed to President Hugo Chávez. The same contractor active in Afghanistan and connected with the CIA, Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), was awarded a multi-million dollar budget from USAID in Venezuela to “assist civil society and the transition to democracy”. More than two thousand documents partially declassified from USAID regarding the agency’s activities in Venezuela reveal the relationship between DAI and sectors of the Venezuelan opposition that have actively been involved in coup d’etats, violent demonstrations and other destabilization attempts against President Chávez.

In Bolivia, USAID was expelled this year from two municipalities, Chapare and El Alto, after being accused of interventionism. In September 2009, President Evo Morales announced the termination of an official agreement with USAID allowing its operations in Bolivia, based on substantial evidence documenting the agency’s funding of violent separtist groups seeking to destabilize the country.

In 2005, USAID was also expelled from Eritrea and accused of being a “neo-colonialist” agency. Ethiopia, Russia and Belarus have ordered the expulsion of USAID and its contractors during the last five years.

Development Alternatives, Inc. is one of the largest U.S. government contractors in the world. The company, with headquarters in Bethesda, MD, presently has a $50 million contract with USAID for operations in Afghanistan. In Latin America, DAI has operations and field offices in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Dominican Republic and Venezuela.

This year, USAID/DAI’s budget in Venezuela nears $15 million USD and its programs are oriented towards strengthening opposition parties, candidates and campaigns for the 2010 legislative elections. Just two weeks ago, President Chávez also denounced the illegal presence of U.S. drone planes in Venezuelan airspace.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

US Military Aggression against Venezuela escalating





Caracas, 20 December – Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez revealed today on his Sunday television and radio program, Aló Presidente, that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, have illegally entered Venezuela’s airspace during the past several days. “A few days ago, one of these military planes penetrated Venezuela as far as Fort Mara,” a Venezuelan military fort in the State of Zulia, bordering Colombia. The drone was seen by several Venezuelan soldiers who immediately reported the aerial violation to their superiors. President Chávez gave the order today to shoot down any drones detected in Venezuelan territory. Chávez also directly implicated Washington in this latest threat against regional stability by confirming that the drones were of US origen.

On Thursday, President Chávez denounced military threats against Venezuela originating from the Dutch islands Aruba and Curazao, situated less than 50 miles off Venezuela’s northwest coast. Both small islands host US air force bases as a result of a 1999 contract between Washington and Holland establishing US Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in the Caribbean colonies. Originally, the contract stipulated US military presence in Aruba and Curazao soley for counternarcotics missions. However, since September 2001, Washington uses all its military installations to combat perceived terrorist threats around the world. The military bases in Aruba and Curazao have been used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaisance missions against Venezuela during the past several years.

In 2006, Washington began conducting a series of high level military exercises using Curazao as the principal zone of operations. Hundreds of US aircraft carriers, warships, combat planes, Black Hawk helicopters, nuclear submarines and thousands of US military troops have been engaging in different military exercises and missions in the Caribbean region during the past three and a half years, causing substantial alarm and concern to nations in the region, particularly Venezuela, which has also been subject to hostile and agressive diplomatic actions from Washington.

In 2008, the Pentagon reactivated the Navy’s Fourth Fleet, charged with defending US interests in the Latin American region. The Fourth Fleet was deactivated in 1950, after accomplishing its original defense mission during World War II. The fleet’s reactivation nearly 60 years later was perceived by a majority of nations in Latin America as a direct threat to regional sovereignty and provoked South American countries to establish a Defense Council to deal with external threats. The Pentagon responded by proudly admitting the Fourth Fleet’s reactivation was a “showing of US force and power in the region” and a demonstration that the US “will defend its regional allies”. This was perceived as direct support to Colombia, and an attempt to intimidate Venezuela.

On October 30, Colombia and the US signed a military cooperation agreement authorizing US occupation of seven military bases in Colombian territory and all other installations as required. The agreement is seen as the largest US military expansion in Latin American history. Although the two governments publicly justified the agreement as an increased effort to fight drug trafficking and terrorism, official US Air Force documents revealed that the US would conduct “full spectrum military operations” throughout South America from the Colombian bases. The Air Force documents also justified the disproportional military expansion as necessary to combat “the constant threat…from anti-US governments in the region”. The documents further revealed that the US presence in Colombia will increase the success of “Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaisance” operations and will improve the Pentagon’s capacity to conduct “expeditionary warfare” in Latin America.

Since 2006, Washington has classified Venezuela as a nation “not fully collaborating with the war against terror”. In 2005, Venezuela was labeled by the State Department as a nation “not cooperating with counter-narcotics operations”. Despite no substantive evidence to prove such dangerous accusations, the US has utilized these classifications to justify an increase in agression towards the Venezuelan government. In 2008, the Bush Administration attempted to place Venezuela on the list of State Sponsors of terrorism. The initiative was unsuccessful primarily because Venezuela is still a principal supplier of oil to the US. Should Washington consider Venezuela a terrorist state, all relations would be cut off, including oil supply.

Nevertheless, Washington still views Venezuela as a major threat to US interests in the region. The US is particularly concerned about Latin American nations engaging in commercial relations with countries such as China, Russia and Iran, perceived as economic threats to US control and domination in the region. Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a warning to countries in Latin America that have recently forged relations with Iran, such as Bolivia, Brazil, Nicaragua and Venezuela. “…I think that if people want to flirt with Iran, they should take a look at what the consequences might well be for them, and we hope that they will think twice…”, Clinton stated during remarks made regarding the State Department’s Latin American policy.

The Colombian government announced yesterday that a new military base will be built right near the border with Venezuela, with funding and equipment from the United States. Colombia’s Defense Minister Gabriel Silva also announced the activation of two air battalions at other border areas near Venezuela. The new military base, located in the Guajira peninsula, which borders the Venezuelan State of Zulia, would have up to 1,000 troops and would also allow the presence of US armed forces and private military contractors. This announcement clearly ups the anty against Venezuela.

Today’s statements made by President Chávez regarding the US military drones discovered violating Venezuelan territory just days ago further escalate the growing tensions between Venezuela and Colombia. The MQ-1 Predator UAV, a type of combat drone, has been used over the past year in Afghanistan and Pakistan to assassinate suspect terrorists. The drones are equipped with Hellfire missiles and are capable of hitting ground targets in sensitive areas.

Venezuela is on high alert in the face of this dangerous threat. Chávez made the statements regarding the drone detection during the launching of the new National Police Force, a recently created communal police force directed at preventive security operations and community-based service.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

CIA AGENT CAPTURED IN CUBA: An employee of a CIA front organization working in Venezuela was detained in Cuba this week

EN ESPAÑOL

CIA Agent Captured in Cuba

An employee of a CIA front organization that also funds opposition groups in Venezuela was detained in Cuba last week

By Eva Golinger

An article published in the December 12th edition of the New York Times revealed the detention of a US government contract employee in Havana this past December 5th. The employee, whose name has not yet been disclosed, works for Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), one of the largest US government contractors providing services to the State Department, the Pentagon and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The employee was detained while distributing cellular telephones, computers and other communications equipment to Cuban dissident and counterrevolutionary groups that work to promote US agenda on the Caribbean island.

Last year, the US Congress approved $40 million to “promote transition to democracy” in Cuba. DAI was awarded the main contract, “The Cuba Democracy and Contingency Planning Program”, with oversight by State and USAID. The use of a chain of entities and agencies is a mechanism employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to channel and filter funding and strategic political support to groups and individuals that support US agenda abroad. The pretext of “promoting democracy” is a modern form of CIA subversion tactics, seeking to infiltrate and penetrate civil society groups and provide funding to encourage “regime change” in strategically important nations, such as Venezuela, with governments unwilling to subcomb to US dominance.

DAI IN VENEZUELA

DAI was contracted in June 2002 by USAID to manage a multimillion dollar contract in Venezuela, just two months after the failed coup d’etat against President Hugo Chávez. Prior to this date, USAID had no operations in Venezuela, not even an office in the Embassy. DAI was charged with opening the Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI), a specialized branch of USAID that manages large quantities of liquid funds destined for organizations and political parties favorable to Washington in countries of strategic interest that are undergoing political crises.

The first contract between USAID and DAI for its Venezuela operations authorized $10 million for a two year period. DAI opened its doors in the Wall Street of Caracas, El Rosal, in August 2002, and began to immediately fund the same groups that just months earlier had executed - unsuccessfully – the coup against President Chávez. The USAID/DAI funds in Venezuela were distributed to organizations such as Fedecámaras and the Confederación de Trabajadores Venezolanos (CTV), two of the principal entities that had led the coup in April 2002 and that later headed another attempt to oust Chávez by imposing an economic sabotage and oil industry strike that crippled the nation’s economy. One contract between DAI and these organizations, dated December 2002, awarded more than $10,000 to help design radio and television propaganda against President Chávez. During that time period, Venezuela experienced one of the most viscious media wars in history. Private television and radio stations, together with print media, devoted non-stop programming to opposition propaganda for 64 days, 24 hours a day.

In February 2003, DAI began to fund a recently created group named Súmate, led by Maria Corina Machado, one of the signators of the “Carmona Decree”, the famous dictatorial decree that dissolved all of Venezuela’s democratic institutions during the brief April 2002 coup d’etat. Súmate soon became the principal opposition organization directing campaigns against President Chávez, including the August 2004 recall referendum. The three main agencies from Washington operating in Venezuela at that time, USAID, DAI and the National Endowment for Democracy (“NED”), invested more than $9 million in the opposition campaign to oust Chávez via recall referendum, without success. Chávez won with a 60-40 landslide victory.

USAID, which still maintains its presence through the OTI and DAI in Venezuela, had originally announced that it would not remain in the country for more than a two year period. Then chief of the OTI in Venezuela, Ronald Ulrich, publically affirmed this notion in March 2003, “This program will be finished in two years, as has happened with similiar initiatives in other countries, the office will close in the time period stated…Time is always of the essence”. Technically, the OTI are USAID’s rapid response teams, equipped with large amounts of liquid funds and a specialized personnel capable of “resolving a crisis” in a way favorable to US interests. In the document establishing the OTI’s operations in Venezuela, the intentions of those behind its creation were clear, “In recent months, his popularity has waned and political tensions have risen dramatically as President Chávez has implemented several controversial reforms…The current situation augers strongly for rapid US government engagement…”

To date, the OTI still remains in Venezuela, with DAI as its principal contractor. But now, four other entities share USAID’s multimillion dollar pie in Caracas: International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), Freedom House, and the PanAmerican Development Foundation (PADF). Of the 64 groups funded from 2002-2004 with approximately $5 million annually, today the OTI funds more than 533 organizations, political parties, programs and projects, mainly in opposition sectors, with an annual budget surpassing $7 million. Its presence has not only remained, but has grown. Obviously this is due to one very simple reason: the original objetive has still not been obtained; the overthrow or removal of President Hugo Chávez.

DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES INC. IS A CIA FRONT ORGANIZATION

This organization dedicated to destabilizing governments unfavorable to US interests has now made its appearance in Cuba, with millions of dollars destined to destroy the Cuban revolution. Ex CIA officer Phillip Agee affirmed that DAI, USAID and NED “are instruments of the US Embassy and behind these three organizations is the CIA.“ The contract between USAID and DAI in Venezuela confirms this fact, “The field representative will maintain close collaboration with other embassy offices in identifying opportunities, selecting partners and ensuring the program remains consistent with US foreign policy.” There is no doubt that “selecting partners” is another term for “recluting agents” and “consistent with US foreign policy” means “promoting Washington’s interests”, despite issues of sovereignty. Clearly, all DAI activities are directly coordinated by the US Embassy, a fact which negates the “private” nature of the organization.

The detention of a DAI employee is a very important step to impede destabilization and subversion inside Cuba. This episode also confirms that there has been no change of policy with the Obama Administration towards Cuba – the same tactics of espionage, infiltration and subversion are still being actively employed against one of Washington’s oldest adversaries.

VENEZUELA SHOULD ALSO EXPEL DAI

Now that Cuba has exposed the intelligence operations that DAI was engaging in (recluting agents, infiltrating political groups and distributing resources destined to promote destabilization and regime change are all intelligence activities and illegal), the Venezuelan government should respond firmly by expelling this grave threat from the country. DAI has now been operating in Venezuela for over seven and a half years, feeding the conflict with more than $50 million dollars and promoting destabilization, counterrevolution, media warfare and sabotage.

In an ironic twist, currently in the United States five Cuban citizens are imprisoned on charges of alleged espionage, yet their actions in US territory were not directed towards harming US interests. But the DAI employee detained in Cuba – working for a CIA front company – was engaged in activities intended to directly harm and destabilize the Cuban government. The distribution of materials to be used for political purposes by a foreign government with the intent of promoting regime change in a nation not favorable to US interests is clearly a violation of sovereignty and an act of espionage.

Development Alternatives, Inc. is one of the largest US government contractors in the world. Currently, DAI has a $50 million contract in Afghanistan. In Latin America, DAI is presently operating in Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haití, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Perú, República Dominicana and Venezuela.


[All references in this article to DAI in Venezuela are thoroughly documented in The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela by Eva Golinger (Olive Branch Press 2006).]

Sunday, December 6, 2009

EVA GOLINGER GANADORA DEL PREMIO INTERNACIONAL DEL PERIODISMO EN MEXICO/WINNER OF INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISM AWARD IN MEXICO 2009

(México D.F. 02 de diciembre). La periodista, abogada escritora e investigadora estadounidense-venezolana Eva Golinger recibirá el Premio Internacional de Periodismo que otorga el Club de Periodistas de México por sus trabajos difundidos entre el 31 de octubre de 2008 y el 01 de noviembre de 2009. La Doctora en Derecho Internacional, Eva Golinger, ha sido otorgado el Premio Internacional de Periodismo Altruista y Trabajo Periodístico de Mayor Servicio a la Sociedad del distinguido Club de Periodistas de México.

El premio le será entregado durante una ceremonia que se efectuará en la sede de esta prestigiosa institución en la Calle Filomeno Mata de Ciudad de México, el próximo 08 de diciembre.

En la comunicación dirigida a la Doctora Golinger, los directivos del Club de Periodistas de México, Presidente Mario Méndez Acosta, la Secretaria General, Celeste Sáenz de Miera y el Director General, Mouris Salloum, a nombre de los socios del Club, de sus delegaciones nacionales e internacionales y de su brazo académico y asistencial, la Fundación Antonio Sáenz de Miera, felicitan a la galardonada “por su destacado trabajo periodístico”.

Este Premio fue creado en 1951 por Antonio Sáenz de Miera, entonces Presidente de la Asociación Mexicana de Periodistas “para enaltecer la profesión y distinguir el desempeño de funciones específicas a nivel nacional e internacional”. Es un premio de periodistas para periodistas, pues el jurado está integrado por reconocidos profesionales de este oficio.

El premio es absolutamente independiente, no recibe subsidios, patrocinios ni apoyo de injerencia externa. El respeto que despierta el certamen como defensor de la libertad de expresión queda de manifiesto por el número de trabajos periodísticos recibidos este año, más de siete mil.

Durante su permanencia en Ciudad de México, Eva Golinger dictará la conferencia “La ofensiva imperial de Washington en América Latina”, el 9 de diciembre, en el Teatro del Pueblo. El 10 regresará a Caracas.

Eva Golinger es abogada, escritora y analista política. En la última década ha denunciado la injerencia de Estados Unidos de Norteamérica en Venezuela y en otros países de América Latina a través de varios trabajos de investigación. Es autora de los libros “El Código Chávez: Descifrando la intervención de Estados Unidos en Venezuela” (Monte Avila 2005); “Bush vs Chávez: la guerra de Washington contra Venezuela” (Monte Avila 2006); “La Telaraña Imperial: enciclopedia de injerencia y subversión” (Monte Avila 2009) y otros. Sus libros y escritos han sido traducidos al inglés, francés, alemán, italiano, farsi, chino, portugués, sueco y ruso.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL...(mentions me!)

IS THERE ANY MARGIN FOR HYPOCRISY AND DECEIT?

The United States, in its struggle against the Revolution, had in the Venezuelan government its best ally: the eximious Mr. Rómulo Betancourt Bello. We did not know it then. He had been elected President on December 7, 1958; he had not taken office yet when the Cuban Revolution triumphed on January 1st, 1959. Weeks later I had the privilege of being invited by the provisional government of Wolfgang Larrazábal to visit Bolivar’s homeland, which had been so supportive of Cuba.

Very seldom in my life had I seen a warmer people. The film images are still preserved. We drove down the broad highway that replaced the paved road I was taken through the first time I traveled to Venezuela in 1948 -from Maiquetía to Caracas- by the most reckless drivers I had ever seen.

That time I heard the noisiest, longest and most embarrassing booing of my life when I dared to mention the name of the recently elected President-to-be. The more radical masses of the heroic and combative Caracas had overwhelmingly voted against him.

The “illustrious” Rómulo Betancourt was referred to with interest by Latin America and Caribbean political circles.

What was the explanation for that? He had been so radical when he was young that at the age of 23 he became a full member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Costa Rica and remained there from 1931 to 1935. Those were the hard times of the Third International. From Marxism-Leninism he learned about the class structure in a society, the exploitation of men by men throughout history and the development of colonization, capitalism and imperialism in recent centuries.

In 1941, together other leftist leaders, he founded the Partido Acción Democrática (Democratic Action Party) in Venezuela.

He acted as provisional president of Venezuela from October 1945 to February 1948 by virtue of a civic and military coup d’état. He went again into exile when the eminent Venezuelan writer and intellectual, Rómulo Gallegos, was elected Constitutional President and almost immediately after was ousted.

The well-lubricated machinery of his party elects him President during the elections held on December 7, 1958, after the Venezuelan revolutionary forces, led by Junta Patriótica (Patriotic Junta) that was headed by Fabricio Ojeda, overthrew the dictatorship of General Pérez Jiménez.

By the end of 1959, when I spoke at Plaza del Silencio, where hundreds of thousands of people had gathered, and I mentioned, out of sheer courtesy, the name of Betancourt, there was this colossal booing that I mentioned earlier against the President-elect. To me that was a true lesson of political realism. Later I had to pay a visit to him, since he was the President-elect of a friendly nation. I found him to be an embittered and resentful man. He was already the model of “democratic and representative” government the empire needed. He collaborated as much as he could with the Yankees previous to the mercenary invasion through Girón.

Fabricio Ojeda, a sincere and unforgettable friend of the Cuban Revolution, whom I had the privilege to meet and with whom I talked extensively, told me later much about the political process in his homeland and the Venezuela he dreamed of. He was one of the many persons assassinated by that regime, which was totally to the service of the imperialism.

Almost half a century has gone by ever since. I can attest to the exceptional cynicism of the empire that we, the Revolutionary Cubans, the proud heirs of Bolivar and Marti, have indefatigably confronted.

During all these years, ever since the days of Fabricio Ojeda, the world has changed significantly. The military and technological power of that empire has grown bigger, and so have its experience and total absence of ethics. Its media is ever more costly and less committed to moral standards.

To accuse Hugo Chávez, the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, of inciting a war against the people of Colombia and unleash an arms race, to portray him as the mastermind and promoter of drug trafficking, and accuse him of repressing the freedom of expression, violating human rights and other similar misdeeds is a repugnant and cynical action, as everything else that the empire has done, still does and promotes. We can neither ever forget nor stop reiterating realities. Objective and well-reasoned truth is the most important weapon with which we should ceaselessly hammer into the conscience of peoples.

The US government –it is necessary to remind us of that- promoted and supported the fascist coup d’état in Venezuela on April 11, 2002, and after it failed, it pinned all its hopes in an oil coup, supported with technical programs and resources capable of destroying any government, thus underestimating the people and the revolutionary leadership of that country.

Ever since then, the US government has ceaselessly plotted against the Venezuelan revolutionary process, just as it did and has continued to do against the Revolution in our Homeland for fifty years now. The United States is far more interested in controlling Venezuela –given its huge energy resources and the other raw materials it has, which are obtained at negligible prices, as well as the huge facilities and services owned by transnationals – than Cuba.

After violently crushing the Revolution in Central America and thwarting, by bloody and repressive coups, the democratic and progressive advances in South America, the empire could not resign itself to the construction of socialism in Venezuela. This is a real fact that could not be denied by or hidden from those with a minimum political education in Latin America or elsewhere in the world.

It is worthwhile remembering that not even after the coup promoted by the United States on April 2002 the Venezuelan government armed itself. One oil barrel was hardly 20 dollars worth, a currency that was already devalued since 1971, when Nixon suspended the gold standard mechanism, almost thirty years before Chávez became President. When he took office, the Venezuelan oil was hardly 10 dollars worth. Afterwards, when prices went up, he invested the country’s resources in social programs, development and investment projects and cooperation with several Caribbean and Central American nations and other poorer economies in South America. No other country had offered such a generous cooperation.

He did not buy a single rifle during the first years of his government. He even did something that no other country would have done at a time when his integrity was at stake: he legally suspended the obligation of every honest and revolutionary citizen to defend their country with the arms in their hands.

I would rather say that the Bolivarian Republic waited for too long to acquire new weapons. The infantry rifles they had were the same that existed more than 50 years ago, when the head of the Provisional Government, Admiral Larrazábal, presented me with an automatic FAL rifle on November 1958, the penultimate month of the war. Venezuela continued to use that kind of infantry weaponry for several years after Chávez took office.

It was the US government the one that decreed the disarmament of Venezuela, when it banned the supplies of spare parts for all the Yankee military equipment which it had traditionally sold to that country, including fighting planes, military transport aircraft and even communication equipment and radars. Accusing Venezuela of engaging in an arms build-up is an extremely hypocritical attitude.

Quite on the contrary, the United States has supplied billions of dollars worth in arms, means of combat, aircraft and training to the Armed Forces of the neighboring Colombia. The pretext was the struggle against the guerrillas. I can bear witness to the efforts made by President Hugo Chávez in his quest for the internal peace in that sister nation. The Yankees not only supplied weapons; they also instilled feelings of hatred against Venezuela among the troops they trained, as they did in Honduras, through the Task Force based in Palmerola.

Wherever the US has military bases, it supplies the combat units with the same type of uniform and equipment used by the interventionist troops of that country anywhere else in the world. The United States does not need soldiers of its own, as in Iraq, Afghanistan or the northern region of Pakistan, to plot acts of genocide against our peoples.

The imperialist extreme right, which holds the reins of power, resorts to brazen lies to mask its plans.

The Venezuelan-American lawyer and analyst, Eva Golinger has shown how the strategic arguments used in the message sent on May, 2009, to the United States Congress to justify an investment in the military base of Palanquero were absolutely altered in the agreement whereby the United States received that same base together with several other civil and military facilities. The document sent to the Congress on November 16 entitled “Addendum to reflect terms of the US-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement” that signed on October 30, 2009, has been completely altered, as was explained by the analyst. The document is no longer about “the mobility mission providing access to the entire South American continent with the exception of Cape Horn”. All references to global reach operations, security theaters and increased capability of the US Armed Forces to launch an expeditious warfare in the region have also been modified, according to the sharp and well informed analyst.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the President of the Bolivarian Republic is striving very hard to overcome the obstacles put by the United States against Latin American countries, among them, social violence and drug trafficking. The American society was not able to prevent drug trafficking and consumption, the consequences of which are affecting many countries of the region.

Violence has been of the most exported products by the United States capitalist society during the last half a century, through the increasing use of the media and the so called entertainment industry. Those are new phenomena that the human society did not know about before. Such means could be used to create new values in a more humane and just society.

Developed capitalism created the so called consumption societies and with that it also created problems that it is not able to solve today.

Venezuela is the country that has more rapidly been implementing the social programs that can counteract those extremely negative trends.The colossal successes achieved in the last Bolivarian Sport Games is a proof of that.

At the UNASUR meeting, the Foreign Minister of the Bolivarian Republic made a crystal-clear explanation about the problem of peace in the region. What is the position adopted by each country regarding the installation of Yankee bases in South America? This is an obligation not only of each and every State, but also a moral obligation of each and every conscious and honest man and woman of our hemisphere and the world. The empire should know that whatever the circumstances, Latin Americans will fight tirelessly for their most sacred rights.

There are far more serious and pressing problems affecting all peoples in the world: climate change is perhaps the worst and most urgent at this moment.

Before December 18, each State should adopt a decision. Once again the illustrious Peace Nobel Laureate, Barack Obama, should define his position regarding this thorny issue.

Since he accepted the responsibility of receiving the Prize, he will have to respond to the ethical request launched by Michael Moore when he heard the news: “now you should earn it!” I wonder if he could. At a time when there is a unanimous demand on the part of scientific circles to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by no less than 30 per cent of the levels attained in 1990, the United States is only offering to reduce 17 per cent of what it emitted in 2005, which hardly accounts for 5 per cent of the minimum that Science demands from all the inhabitants of this planet by the year 2020. The United States consumes twice as much per inhabitant than Europe, and its emissions exceed those of China, despite its 1.338 billion inhabitants. An inhabitant of the society that consumes the most, emits tens of times more CO2 per capita that a citizen from a poor country of the Third World.

In only thirty more years, the no less than 9 billion human beings that will inhabit the planet will require that the carbon dioxide volumes emitted into the atmosphere be reduced to no less than 80 per cent of the 1990 levels. Such figures are being bitterly understood by an increasing number of leaders of rich countries. But the hierarchy that leads the most powerful and rich country in the planet, the United States, comforts itself by asserting that such predictions are scientific inventions.

Everybody knows that in Copenhagen, countries will, at best, agree on continuing discussions so that an agreement could be reached among the more than 200 States and institutions that should discuss about the commitments, among them, a very important one: which will be the rich countries that will contribute to the development and energy saving of the poorest countries and how much resources will they give?

Is there any margin for hypocrisy and deceit?

Fidel Castro Ruz
November 29, 2009
7:15 p.m.

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Elecciones ilegales en Honduras y la hipocresía de Washington

[IN ENGLISH BELOW]

Elecciones ilegales en Honduras y la hipocresía de Washington
Por Eva Golinger

“¿Qué vamos a hacer, quedarnos sentados durante cuatro años y simplemente condenar al golpe?” – declaraciones de un alto oficial del Departamento de Estado en Washington ayer.

Las verdaderas divisiones en América Latina – entre la justicia y la injusticia, democracia y dictadura, derechos humanos y derechos de corporaciones, el poder popular y la dominación imperial – nunca han estado tan visibles como hoy. Los movimientos de los pueblos por toda la región para transformar sistemas corruptos y desiguales que han aislado y excluido la mayoría de las naciones latinoamericanas, están hoy exitosamente tomando el poder de forma democrática y construyendo nuevos modelos fundamentados en la justicia económica y la justicia social. Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua y Ecuador están en la vanguardia de estos movimientos, mientras que otras naciones, como Uruguay y Argentina se están moviendo con un paso un poco más lento hacia el cambio.

La región históricamente ha sido plagada por una injerencia brutal de Estados Unidos, la cual ha buscado a todo costo dominar y controlar los recursos estratégicos y naturales contenidos en este territorio abundante. Con la excepción de la desafiante revolución cubana, Washington logró instalar regímenes títeres por toda América Latina a finales del siglo XX. Cuando Hugo Chávez ganó la presidencia en 1998 y la revolución bolivariana comenzó a florecer, el balance del poder y el control imperial sobre la región se debilitaban. Ocho años del gobierno de George W. Bush trajo de nuevo los golpes de estado a la región, en Venezuela en 2002 contra el Presidente Chávez y en Haití en 2004 contra el Presidente Aristide. El primero fue derrotado por una insurrección popular masiva del pueblo, y el posterior logró secuestrar y derrocar a un presidente ya no conveniente para los intereses de Washington.

A pesar de los esfuerzos de la administración de Bush de neutralizar la expansión de revolución en América Latina, a través de golpes, sabotajes económicos, guerra mediática, operaciones psicológicas, intervención electoral y un incremento en la presencia militar, naciones justo a la frontera estadounidense, como Honduras, El Salvador y Guatemala eligieron presidentes con tendencias izquierdistas. La integración latinoamericana se consolidó con UNASUR y ALBA, y las garras del poder de Washington comenzaron a desaparecer.

Henry Kissinger dijo en los años setenta, “si no podemos controlar a América Latina, ¿cómo vamos a dominar al mundo?” Esta visión imperialista está muy vigente hoy. La presencia de Obama en la Casa Blanca fue vista de forma errónea por muchos en la región como un señal de un final a la agresión estadounidense en el mundo, y especialmente aquí, en América Latina. Por lo menos, muchos pensaban que Obama disminuiría las crecientes tensiones con sus vecinos en el sur. Por cierto, el mismo, el nuevo presidente de Estados Unidos, hizo alusiones a tales cambios.

Pero ahora, la estrategia del “Smart Power” (poder inteligente) de la administración de Obama ha sido desenmascarada. Los abrazos, intercambios de manos, sonrisas, regalos y promesas de “no más intervención” y “una nueva era” realizadas por el Presidente Obama mismo ante los líderes de las naciones latinoamericanas durante la Cumbre de las Américas en Trinidad en abril pasado, se han convertido en cínicos gestos de hipocresía. Cuando Obama llegó al poder, la reputación de Washington estaba decayendo. Los intentos débiles de “cambiar” la relación Norte-Sur en las Américas han resultado en una situación peor, reafirmando que la visión de Kissinger sobre la importancia de controlar ésta región es una política de estado de Washington que no depende de ningún partido o jefe de estado.

El papel de Washington en el golpe en Honduras contra el Presidente Zelaya ha sido evidente desde el primer día. El financiamiento contínua a los golpistas, la presencia militar del Pentágono en Soto Cano, las constantes reuniones entre funcionarios del Departamento de Estado y el embajador de EEUU en Honduras, Hugo Llorens, con los golpistas, y los intentos cínicos de forzar una “mediación” y “negociación” entre los golpistas y el gobierno legítimo de Honduras, son evidencias contundentes sobre las intenciones de Washington de consolidar esta nueva forma de “golpe inteligente”. La insistencia pública inicial del gobierno de Obama sobre la legitimidad de Zelaya como presidente de Honduras rápidamente desapareció luego de las primeras semanas del golpe. Los llamados para la “restitución del órden democrático y constitucional” en Honduras fueron cambiadas por cuchicheos débiles repetidos por las voces monótonas de los voceros del Departamento de Estado.

La imposición del presidente de Costa Rica, Oscar Árias – una ficha de Washington – para “mediar” la “negociación” ordenada por Washington entre los golpistas y el Presidente Zelaya fue un circo. Del primer momento, era obvio que el Departamento de Estado estaba promoviendo una estrategia de “ganar tiempo” para consolidar el golpe en Honduras. La falta de sinceridad de Árias y su complicidad en el golpe fue evidente desde la misma mañana del violento secuestro y el exilio forzado de Zelaya. Altos funcionarios del Pentágono, el Departamento de Estado y la CIA presentes en la base de Soto Cano, controlada por Washington, arreglaron el transporte de Zelaya a Costa Rica. Árias había ya expresado su disposición, de forma subserviente, para refugiar al presidente ilegamente exiliado y de no detener aquellos secuestradores que pilotearon el avión que – en violación del derecho internacional – llegó al territorio costariquense.

Hoy, Oscar Arias ha hecho un llamado a todas las naciones del mundo para “reconocer” a las elecciones ilegales e ilegítimas que están tomando lugar en Honduras. ¿Porqué no?, ha dicho Árias, si no hay fraude o irregularidades, “¿porqué no reconocer a un nuevo presidente? El Departamento de Estado y hasta el propio presidente Obama han dicho lo mismo y están llamando –presionando – a sus aliados de reconocer a un nuevo régimen en Honduras, elegido bajo una dictadura. El fraude y las irregularidades ya están presentes, considerando que hoy, ninguna democracia existe en Honduras que permitiría las condiciones adecuadas para un proceso electoral. Y el Departamento de Estado admitió hace dos semanas que están activamente financiando el proceso electoral y las campañas electorales en Honduras desde hace tiempo. Y los “observadores internacionales” enviados para dar credbilidad al proceso ilegal en Honduras son todas agencias y agentes del imperio. El Instituto Republicano Internacional (IRI), y el Instituto Demócrato Nacional (NDI), dos agencias creadas para filtrar el financiamiento de la USAID y la NED a partidos políticos en el exterior para promover la agenda estadounidense, no solamente financiaron a los grupos involucrados en el golpe de estado en Honduras sino ahora están “observando” las elecciones. Grupos terroristas como UnoAmerica, dirigido por el golpista venezolano Alejando Peña Esclusa, también han enviado “observadores” a Honduras. Y el terrorista criminal miamero-cubano Adolfo Franco, antiguo director de la USAID, es otro “pesado” en la lista de los observadores electorales hoy en Honduras.

Pero la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) y el Centro Carter, que no son entidades “izquierdistas”, han condenado al proceso electoral en Honduras como ilegítimo y rechazaron enviar observadores. Lo mismo lo han hecho las Naciones Unidas y la Unión Europea, tanto como la UNASUR y el ALBA.

Washington está sólo, junto a sus regímenes títeres en Colombia, Panamá, Perú, Costa Rica e Israel, como las únicas naciones que públicamente han indicado su reconocimiento del proceso electoral en Honduras. Un alto funcionario del Departamento de Estado declaró ayer al Washington Post, "¿Qué vamos a hacer, quedarnos sentados durante cuatro años y simplemente condenar al golpe?" Bueno, Washington se ha quedado sentado durante 50 años rechazando reconocer al gobierno cubano. Pero eso es porque el gobierno de Cuba no le conviene a Washington. Y el régimen dictatorial en Honduras sí le conviene.

El movimiento de resistencia en Honduras está boicoteando las elecciones, llamando para la absención masiva del proceso ilegal. Las calles de Honduras han sido tomadas por miles de fuerzas militares, bajo el control del Pentágono. Con armas avanzadas de Israel, el régimen golpista está preparado para reprimir y brutalizar de forma masiva a los que resisten el proceso electoral. Debemos mantener nuestra vigilancia y solidaridad con el pueblo de Honduras frente al peligro inmenso que lo rodea. Las elecciones de hoy en Honduras constituyen un segundo golpe de estado contra el pueblo hondureño, esta vez abiertamente diseñado, promovido, financiado y apoyado por Washington. Sin importar el resultado de las elecciones, no habrá justicia para Honduras hasta que cese la injerencia imperial.

BOGUS HONDURAN ELECTIONS TODAY: Hypocrites Washington, Costa Rica, Panama, Perú, Colombia & Israel the only nations to recognize the illegal elections

"What are we going to do, sit for four years and just condemn the coup?" a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told reporters in Washington.


The true divides in Latin America - between justice and injustice, democracy and dictatorship, human rights and corporate rights, people's power and imperial domination - have never been more visible than today. People's movements throughout the region to revolutionize corrupt, unequal systems that have isolated and excluded the vast majority in Latin American nations, are successfully taking power democratically and building new models of economic and social justice. Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador are the vanguard of these movements, with other nations such as Uruguay and Argentina moving at a slower pace towards change.

The region has historically been plagued by brutal US intervention, seeking at all costs to dominate the natural and strategic resources contained in this vast, abundant territory. With the exception of the defiant Cuban Revolution, Washington achieved control over puppet regimes placed throughout Latin America by the end of the twentieth century. When Hugo Chávez won the presidency in 1998 and the Bolivarian Revolution began to root, the balance of power and imperial control over the region started to weaken. Eight years of Bush/Cheney brought coup d'etats back to the region, in Venezuela in 2002 against President Chávez and Haiti in 2004 against President Aristide. The former was defeated by a mass popular uprising, the latter succeeded in ousting a president no longer convenient to Washington's interests.

Despite the Bush administration's efforts to neutralize the spread of revolution in Latin America through coups, economic sabotages, media warfare, psychological operations, electoral interventions and an increasing military presence, nations right across the border such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala elected leftist-leaning presidents. Latin American integration solidified with UNASUR (the union of South American nations) and ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas), and Washington's grip on power began to slip away.

Henry Kissinger said in the seventies, "if we can't control Latin America, how can we dominate the world?" This imperial vision is more evident today than ever before. Obama's presence in the White House was erroneously viewed by many in the region as a sign of an end to US aggression in the world, and especially here, in Latin America. At least, many believed, Obama would downscale the growing tensions with its neighbors to the south. In fact, he himself, the new president of the United States, made allusion to such changes.

But now, the Obama administration's "Smart Power" strategy has been unmasked. The handshakes, smiles, gifts and promises of "no intervention" and "a new era" made by President Obama himself to leaders of Latin American nations last Spring at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Trinidad have unraveled and turned into cynical gestures of hypocrisy. When Obama came to power, Washington's reputation in the region was at an all-time low. The meager attempts to "change" the North-South relationship in the Americas have made things worse and reaffirmed that Kissinger's vision of control over this region is a state policy, irrespective of party affiliation or public discourse.

Washington's role in the coup in Honduras against President Zelaya has been evident from day one. The continual funding of coup leaders, the US military presence at the Soto Cano base in Honduras, the ongoing meetings between State Department officials and the US Ambassador in Honduras, Hugo Llorens, with coup leaders, and the cynical attempts to force "mediation" and "negotiation" between the coup leaders and the legitimate government of Honduras, have provided clear evidence of Washington's intentions to consolidate this new form of "smart coup". The Obama administration's initial public insistence on Zelaya's legitimacy as president of Honduras quickly faded after the first weeks of the coup. Calls for "restitution of democratic and constitutional order" became weak whispers repeated by the monotone voices of State Department spokesmen.

The imposition of Costan Rican president Oscar Arias - a staunch ally of neoliberalism and imperialism -to "mediate" the negotiation ordered by Washington between coup leaders and President Zelaya was a circus. At the time, it was apparent that Washington was engaging in a "buying time" strategy, pandering to the coup leaders while publicly "working" to resolve the conflict in Honduras. Arias' insincerity and complicity in the coup was evident from the very morning of Zelaya's violent kidnapping and forced exile. The Pentagon, State Department and CIA officials present on the Soto Cano base, which is controlled by Washington, arranged for Zelaya's transport to Costa Rica. Arias had subserviently agreed to refuge the illegally ousted president and to not detain those who kidnapped him and piloted the plane that - in violation of international law - landed in Costa Rican territority.

Today, Oscar Arias has called on all nations to "recognize" the illegal and illegitimate elections occurring in Honduras. Why not? he says, if there is no fraud or irregularity, "why not recognize the newly elected president?" The State Department and even President Obama himself have said the same thing, and are calling on all nations - pressuring - to recognize a regime that will be elected under a dictatorship. Seems that fraud and irregularity are already present, considering that today, no democracy exists in Honduras that would permit proper conditions for an electoral process. Not to mention that the State Department admitted to funding the elections and campaigns in Honduras weeks ago. And the "international observers" sent to witness and provide "credibility" to the illegal process are all agencies and agents of empire. The International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute, both agencies created to filter funding from USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to political parties abroad in order to promote US agenda, not only funded those groups involved in the Honduran coup, but now are "observing" the elections. Terrorist groups such as UnoAmerica, led by Venezuelan coup leader Alejando Peña Esclusa, have also sent "observers" to Honduras. Miami-Cuban terrorist and criminal Adolfo Franco, former USAID director, is another "heavyweight" on the list of electoral observers in Honduras today.

But the Organization of American States (OAS) and Carter Center, hardly "leftist" entities, have condemned the electoral process as illegitimate and refused to send observers. So has the United Nations and the European Union, as well as UNASUR and ALBA.

Washington stands alone, with its right-wing puppet states in Colombia, Panamá, Perú, Costa Rica and Israel, as the only nations to have publicly indicated recognition of the electoral process in Honduras and the future regime. A high-level State Department official cynically declared to the Washington Post, "What are we going to do, sit for four years and just condemn the coup?" Well, Washington has sat for 50 years and refused to recognize the Cuban government. But that's because the Cuban government is not convenient for Washington. The Honduran dictatorship is.

The Honduran resistance movement is boycotting the elections, calling on people to abstain from participating in an illegal process. The streets of Honduras have been taken over by thousands of military forces, under control of the coup regime and the Pentagon. With advanced weapons technology from Israel, the coup regime is prepared to massively repress and brutalize any who attempt to resist the electoral process. We must remain vigilant and stand with the people of Honduras in the face of the immense danger surrounding them. Today's elections are a second coup d'etat against the Honduran people, this time openly designed, promoted, funded and supported by Washington. Whatever the result, no justice will be brought to Honduras until Washington's intervention ceases.

Friday, November 27, 2009

BREAKING NEWS: Washington alters US Air Force document to hide intentions behind military accord with Colombia

by Eva Golinger
27 November 2009


In an explicit attempt to hide Washington’s military objetives in South America, a US Air Force document submitted to Congress in May 2009 that provoked deep concerns in the region has been modified and re-published on November 16, 2009. The official US Air Force document, revealed and denounced by this author on November 4th, explained the justification for a $46 million request to improve the military installations in one of the seven bases Washington will occupy under the military accord signed on October 30th between Colombia and the United States. The modified document has eliminated all mention of war and military operations in the region, as well as offensive language directed at Colombia’s neighbors, Venezuela and Ecuador. Nevertheless, Washington’s intentions remain the same.

The original Air Force document dated May 2009 outlined the importance of the military base in Palanquero, Colombia to enable “full spectrum military operations” in South America. The original military document also detailed the necessity of investing $46 million to improve the airfield, ramps and other essential installations on the base, converting it into a Cooperative Security Location (CSL) for US military missions in the region.

Original US Air Force document, May 2009:

“Establishing a Cooperative Security Location (CSL) in Palanquero best supports the COCOM’s (Command Combatant’s) Theater Posture Strategy and demonstrates our commitment to this relationship. Development of this CSL provides a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub-region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-US governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters.”

The US Air Force document dated November 16, 2009 and sent to the Congress under the title, “Addendum to reflect terms of the US-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement signed on 30 October 2009”, alters the original controversial language, eliminating key terms and references that provoked grave concerns in the region. The November 16th Air Force document makes no mention of establishing a Cooperative Security Location (CSL) in Palanquero, Colombia, however it does consistently refer to Palanquero as a “location”, retaining the original intentions. Furthermore, the monetary request is reduced by a mere $3 million to $43 million, evidencing that the original project remains almost 100% in tact. Congress had previously approved the initial $46 million request made by the Pentagon last Spring, conditioning the funds on the final signing of the US-Colombia military accord, which was solidified on October 30th. But the November 16th US Air Force document makes a clear attempt to disguise the original intentions by eliminating the provocative language referring to “full spectrum military operations in a critical sub-region…where security and stability is under constant threat from…anti-US governments.” That language in particular sparked immediate concerns and accusations regarding Washington’s intentions to utilize Colombia as a launching pad to attack countries such as Venezuela, considered erroneously “anti-US” by many.

The modified US Air Force document of November 16, 2009:

“This project at Palanquero best supports the Combatant Command’s (COCOM) Theater Posture Strategy and demonstrates our commitment to this relationship [with Colombia]. Development of this project provides a unique opportunity to support an important partner in a region of the western hemisphere where security and stability are under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters.”

The original US Air Force document identified Palanquero as the perfect place to enable the implementation of the US global mobility strategy because it “provides access to the entire South American continent.”

Original US Air Force document from May 2009:

“Palanquero is unquestionably the best site for investing in infrastructure development within Colombia. Its central location is within reach of…operations areas…its isolation maximizes Operational Security (OPSEC) and Force Protection and minimizes the US military profile. The intent is to leverage existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible, improve the US ability to respond rapidly to crisis, and assure regional access and presence at minimum cost. Palanquero supports the mobility mission by providing access to the entire South American continent with the exception of Cape Horn…”

The modified document dated November 16, 2009 eliminates all references and language refering to the “mobility mission” and “access to the entire South American continent”. However, the global mobility strategy remains an official military policy and defense strategy of the Pentagon, evidenced in the White Paper: Global en Route Strategy of the Air Mobility Command of the US Air Force, and the Pentagon’s budget request and justification submitted in early 2009. Both documents specifically refer to the urgency and necessity of occupying the Palanquero base in Colombia in order to guarantee US global mobility for military operations and missions.

The modified US Air Force document of November 16, 2009 additionally erases all original language refering to Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance operations that would take place from the Palanquero base. Furthermore, all references to “regional access”, “theater security cooperation” and “expeditionary warfare capability” in the region have been eliminated.

Original US Air Force document, May 2009:

“Development of this CSL wil further the strategic partnership forged between the US and Colombia and is in the interest of both nations…A presence will also increase our capability to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach, support logistics requirements, improve partnerships, improve theater security cooperation and expand expeditionary warfare capability.”

Modified US Air Force document, 16 Noviembre 2009:

“Access to Colombia will further its strategic partnership with the United States. Palanquero is unquestionably the best site for investing in infrastructure development within Colombia. Its central location is within reach of counter narco-terrorist operations areas; the runway and existing airfield facilities will reduce construction costs; its isolation maximizes Operational Security (OPSEC) and Force Protection and minimizes the US military profile. The intent is to leverage existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible, improve the US ability to respond rapidly to crises, and assure access and presence at minimum cost. The taxiway and ramp/apron areas are deficient and in their current configurations severely limit the operational capabilities of this location. Additionally, the operations and support facilities need to be expanded to service a wide array of aircraft that mutually agreed activities may entail.”

Despite the modifications to the US Air Force document more than six months after the original was sent to Congress, the intentions behind the US military agreement with Colombia remain the same. No evidence exists demonstrating a change in the Pentagon’s global mobility strategy - it is an official state policy included in the Global Defense Posture Strategy, in place at the present time. The military base in Palanquero, Colombia has been identified several times in different Pentagon documents as the perfect site – a unique opportunity – to guarantee continental access in South America, facilitating “full spectrum military operations” in Latin America.

Washington can try to erase its language regarding intentions of war, espionage and military operations in Latin America, but the US can’t erase the truth. The original US Air Force document from May 2009 remains the principal justification behind the US-Colombia military accord.


Original US Air Force document, May 2009 available here:

Original document in English:
http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/original_in_english_air_for.pdf

Traducción no oficial al español:
http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/traduccion_del_documento_de.pdf

Modified US Air Force document, 16 November 2009 original and translation available at:
http://www.centrodealerta.org/noticias/ultima_hora_washington_alte.html

ÚLTIMA HORA Washington altera documento de la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU sobre acuerdo militar con Colombia para disfrazar sus intenciones

En un burdo intento de enmascarar sus intenciones bélicas en Suramérica, a última hora un documento de la Fuerza Aérea de Estados Unidos entregado al Congreso de ese país en mayo 2009 que provocó profundas preocupaciones en América Latina ha sido alterado por el gobierno estadounidense y publicado de nuevo el 16 de noviembre de 2009. El documento oficial de la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU, que fue revelado y denunciado por esta investigadora el 4 de noviembre pasado, explicaba la justificación detrás de un solicitud de 46 millones de dólares para mejorar las instalaciones en una de las siete bases militares que Washington ocupará bajo el acuerdo militar firmado entre Colombia y EEUU ell 30 de octubre pasado.

El documento original de la Fuerza Aérea de mayo 2009 destacaba la importancia de la base militar de Palanquero para realizar operaciones militares de “amplio espectro” a nivel continental y hablaba sobre la necesidad de invertir 46 millones de dólares para acondicionar la pista aérea, las rampas y varias otras instalaciones de la base para convertirla en una Localidad de Cooperación en Seguridad (CSL) de EEUU.

Documento original de mayo 2009:

“Estableciendo una Localidad de Coperación en Seguridad (CSL) en Palanquero apoyará la Estrategia de Postura del Teatro del Comando Combatiente (COCOM) y demostrará nuestro compromiso con la relación con Colombia. El desarrollo de este CSL nos da una oportunidad única para las operaciones de amplio espectro en una sub-región crítica en nuestro hemisferio, donde la seguridad y estabilidad están bajo amenaza constante de las insurgencias terroristas financiadas por el narcotráfico, los gobiernos anti-estadounidenses, la pobreza endémica y los frecuentes desastres naturales…”

En el documento enviado el 16 de noviembre al Congreso de EEUU, titulado “Addendum para reflejar los términos del Acuerdo de Cooperación en Defensa entre EEUU y Colombia firmado el 30 de octubre de 2009”, el lenguaje original ha sido completamente alterado. Ahora, el documento no hace mención del establecimiento de una Localidad de Cooperación en Seguridad (CSL) en Palanquero, aunque mantiene igual el mismo proyecto multi-millonario para construirlo, reduciendo la solicitud – ya aprobada por el Congreso - apenás a 43 millones de dólares. Simplemente fue cambiado el lenguaje que provocó reacción de toda América Latina, eliminando las referencias sobre las operaciones de “amplio espectro en una sub-región crítica….donde la seguridad y estabilidad están bajo amenaza constante de…los gobierno anti-estadounidenses…”

Documento modificado de 16 de noviembre de 2009:

“Este proyecto en Palanquero mejor apoya la Estrategia de Postura del Teatro del Comando Combatiente (COCOM) y demuestra nuestro compromiso con ésta relación [con Colombia]. El desarrollo de este proyecto nos da una oportunidad única para apoyar un socio importante en la región del hemisferio occidental donde la seguridad y la estabilidad están bajo amenaza constante por las insurgencias terroristas financiadas con el narcotráfico, la pobreza endémica y los frecuentes desastres naturales.”

El documento original de la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU identificaba a Palanquero como la ubicación perfecta para poder implementar la “misión de movilidad” global “porque garantiza el acceso a todo el continente de Suramérica con la excepción de Cabo de Hornos.” En el documento modificado del 16 de noviembre, todo el lenguaje y las referencias sobre la estrategia de movilidad global del Pentágono han sido eliminados. Sin embargo, dicha estrategia es una política militar oficial del Departamento de Defensa, evidenciada en un documento titulado “Libro Blanco: Estrategia de Movilidad Global” del Comando Aéreo de Movilidad de la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU, también incluido en la solicitud y la justificación del Presupuesto del 2010 del Pentágono.

Por último, el documento de la Fuerza Aérea del 16 de noviembre elimina el lenguaje original sobre las operaciones de Inteligencia, Espionaje y Reconomiento que realizarán desde la base en Palanquero. También han cambiado toda referencia a operaciones de “alcance global”, “teatros de seguridad” y el aumento de la capacidad de las Fuerzas Armadas estadounidenses para realizar una “guerra de forma expedita” en la región.

Documento original de mayo 2009:

“El desarrollo de [la base en Palanquero] profundizará la relación estratégica entre EEUU y Colombia y está en el interés de las dos naciones…[La] presencia también incrementará nuestra capacidad para conducir operaciones de Inteligencia, Espionaje y Reconocimiento (ISR), mejorará el alcance global, apoyará los requisitos de logística, mejorará las relaciones con socios, mejorará la cooperación de teatros de seguridad y aumentará nuestras capacidades de realizar una guerra de forma expedita.”

Documento modificado de 16 de noviembre de 2009:

“Acceso a Colombia profundizará su relación estratégica con Estados Unidos. Palanquero es sin duda el mejor lugar para invertir en el desarrollo de infrastructura en Colombia. Su ubicación central está dentro del alcance de las zonas de operaciones contra los narco-terroristas; su pista y facultades aéreas existentes reducirán los costos de construcción; su ubicación aislada maximiza la Seguridad Operacional (OPSEC) y la Protección de Fuerzas y minimiza el perfil de los militares estadounidenses. La intención es utilizar la infrastructura existente al máximo posible, mejorar la capacidad de los EEUU de responder rápidamente a crisis y garantizar el acceso y la presencia militar estadounidense a un costo mínimo. Las áreas de taxi y las rampas son deficientes y en su actual configuración limitan las capacidades operativas de este lugar. Adicionalmente, las facultades de apoyo y operaciones necesitan ser aumentadas para poder recibir una cantidad amplia de aviones para que las actividades de mútuo acuerdo puedan realizarse.”

A pesar de las modificaciones del documento de la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU, realizadas más de seis meses después de la entrega del documento original en el Congreso, las intenciones detrás del acuerdo militar entre EEUU y Colombia siguien siendo iguales. No existe evidencia ninguna sobre un cambio de la estrategia de movilidad global del Pentágono – la cual es una política de estado y está incluída en la Estrategia de Postura de Defensa Global. La base aérea en Palanquero, Colombia ha sido identificada múltiples veces en diferentes documentos oficiales del Pentágono como la ubicación perfecta – la “oportunidad única” – para garantizar el acceso continental en Suramérica y facilitar las operaciones militares de “amplio espectro” en América Latina.

Washington puede intentar borrar su lenguaje sobre sus intenciones de guerra, espionaje y operaciones militares en América Latina, pero no podrá borrar la verdad. El documento original del mayo 2009 de la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU sigue siendo la justificación principal para el acuerdo militar entre EEUU y Colombia.


Documento de la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU de mayo 2009:

Documento original en inglés: http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/original_in_english_air_for.pdf

Traducción no oficial al español: http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/traduccion_del_documento_de.pdf

Documento de la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU de 16 noviembre 2009 traducción y original en www.centrodealerta.org

Saturday, November 21, 2009

MI NUEVO LIBRO/MY NEW BOOK!




“Si Estados Unidos no podía controlar a América Latina, ¿cómo iba a dominar al mundo?” – Henry Kissinger

Los textos seleccionados para este libro, La Agresión Permanente: USAID, NED y CIA, ilustran la constancia de la injerencia y su adaptación a las cambiantes circunstancias en América Latina. Nosotros, los autores, Jean Guy Allard y mi persona, somos investigadores dedicados desde hace muchos años a descubrir, analizar, monitorear, revelar y denunciar la injerencia y subversión imperial en América Latina, en todas sus formas.

Con este conjunto de ensayos, queremos evidenciar la permanencia de la agresión de Estados Unidos y sus aliados contra los movimientos revolucionarios de América Latina. Queremos demostrar que esa agresión no cesa simplemente porque un hombre de distinto color ocupa la posición de mando en Washington – más bien, como verán en las siguientes páginas, las amenazas imperiales se están intensificando y el peligro crece cada día.

Las palabras de Henry Kissinger nos indican la razon detrás de esta escalada de agresiones contra América Latina. Si ya no dominan al sur de su frontera, ¿cómo mantendrán su dominación mundial?

En un mundo multipolar, no hay imperios. La integración latinoamericana significa la decadencia del imperio estadounidense, y esa gran bestia peleará con toda su fuerza hasta el último momento.

Pensamos que hay una urgencia para alertar a los pueblos frente a lo que vemos es una nueva etapa —más peligrosa— de injerencia. El “smart power” (poder inteligente) de la administración Obama ha logrado bajar la guardia de los pueblos, y hasta algunos piensan que por haber ganado el “Premio Nobel de la paz” Obama estará obligado de construir la paz mundial. Mientras tanto, las bombas caen con más frecuencia sobre Afganistán, la guerra continúa en Irak, Pakistán e Irán están en la mira, América Latina recibe “siete puñales en el corazón” con las bases militares en Colombia, la subversión y contrainsurgencia aumentan, y dentro de Estados Unidos, crecen la miseria, el desempleo, la pobreza y la represión.

Con este libro, también lanzamos el Centro de Alerta para la Defensa de los Pueblos, como un espacio de combate para mantenernos informados sobre las nuevas estrategias y tácticas de injerencia y subversión, y su aplicación contra nosotros. Y hacemos un llamado para unir a nuestros esfuerzos y conocimientos para combatir lo que percibimos es una agresión colectiva contra todos los pueblos desafiantes que resistimos las imposiciones imperiales.

Noam Chomsky dijo que la integración “es una condición previa para la independencia; si están separados los van a atacar uno a uno, pero si están integrados habrá cierto tipo de defensa.” Frente a la agresión permanente contra nuestros pueblos, llamamos para construir la defensa colectiva.

Que este texto sirva como arma para la conciencia en la batalla de las ideas. (EG)

[Libro completo disponible aquí]

Friday, November 6, 2009

The fraud of the Obama Administration's policies revealed (yet again) in Honduras

Negotiate with coup leaders, and well, obviously you won't get justice. The same goes for Empire. The deal Obama/Clinton negotiated via Sub-Secretary of State Thomas Shannon last week in Honduras has just gone sour. No surprise. Like I wrote earlier in a prior article, "Honduras: A Victory for Smart Power", there is no dialogue with a criminal coup regime that stole power illegally by force. Washington's "Smart Power" strategy tried to fool the world into believing otherwise. Many bought it. Thankfully, the people of Honduras in the resistance movement didn't, and they remain strong with their fight for justice, refusing to recognize the upcoming presidential elections scheduled for November 29th. In fact, the only government so far that has outwardly stated it will now recognize those elections as legitimate, despite the fact that President Manuel Zelaya has not been restored to power - I repeat, Zelaya has not been restored to power - is the United States. The Department of State made that clear in several statements over the past couple of days. For Washington, the "end of the crisis" in Honduras was the forced signing of that bogus "agreement" on October 30th.

The only point of contention and actually the only important point at all is the restoration of Zelaya to the presidency. Washington wiggled out an agreement - via Smart Power tactics - that would not require Zelaya's restoration to power, but merely a congressional debate on the issue. Right, again, the same Congress that forged his resignation letter to justify the coup and the same Congress that illegally installed dictator Roberto Micheletti to power.

Now, the coup regime has decided that it will create a "government of unity and reconciliation" led by none other than....Roberto Micheletti!!! And Washington will accept it as a "proud day for Honduras"!

Incredible. Anyway, just wanted to write a quick note on this particularly considering many so-called leftists and progressives have celebrated the "agreement" negotiated by Washington last week and those same folks actually criticized my prior article on Washington's "smart power" victory as "trying to blame the US for everything". Look at the facts. We don't even have to mention Washington's role in the coup, just look at the "negotiation" process. Which government imposed the mediation, the mediator, legitimized the coup regime by doing so, later imposed the "agreement" and applauded it before it was implemented? Only one: the United States of America.

The facts speak for themselves.

Viva la resistencia hondureña!!!

Thursday, November 5, 2009

BREAKING NEWS: Official US Air Force Document Reveals the True Intentions Behind the US-Colombia Military Agreement *

By Eva Golinger


An official document from the Department of the US Air Force reveals that the military base in Palanquero, Colombia will provide the Pentagon with “…an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America…” This information contradicts the explainations offered by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and the US State Department regarding the military agreement signed between the two nations this past October 30th. Both governments have publicly stated that the military agreement refers only to counternarcotics and counterterrorism operations within Colombian territory. President Uribe has reiterated numerous times that the military agreement with the US will not affect Colombia’s neighbors, despite constant concern in the region regarding the true objetives of the agreement. But the US Air Force document, dated May 2009, confirms that the concerns of South American nations have been right on target. The document exposes that the true intentions behind the agreement are to enable the US to engage in “full spectrum military operations in a critical sub-region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies…and anti-US governments…”

The military agreement between Washington and Colombia authorizes the access and use of seven military installations in Palanquero, Malambo, Tolemaida, Larandia, Apíay, Cartagena and Málaga. Additionally, the agreement allows for “the access and use of all other installations and locations as necessary” throughout Colombia, with no restrictions. Together with the complete immunity the agreement provides to US military and civilian personnel, including private defense and security contractors, the clause authorizing the US to utilize any installation throughout the entire country - even commercial aiports, for military ends, signifies a complete renouncing of Colombian sovereignty and officially converts Colombia into a client-state of the US.

The Air Force document underlines the importance of the military base in Palanquero and justifies the $46 million requested in the 2010 budget (now approved by Congress) in order to improve the airfield, associated ramps and other installations on the base to convert it into a US Cooperative Security Location (CSL). “Establishing a Cooperative Security Location (CSL) in Palanquero best supports the COCOM’s (Command Combatant’s) Theater Posture Strategy and demonstrates our commitment to this relationship. Development of this CSL provides a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub-region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-US governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters.”

It’s not difficult to imagine which governments in South America are considered by Washington to be “anti-US governments”. The constant agressive declarations and statements emitted by the State and Defense Departments and the US Congress against Venezuela and Bolivia, and even to some extent Ecuador, evidence that the ALBA nations are the ones perceived by Washington as a “constant threat”. To classify a country as “anti-US” is to consider it an enemy of the United States. In this context, it’s obvious that the military agreement with Colombia is a reaction to a region the US now considers full of “enemies”.

COUNTERNARCOTICS OPERATIONS ARE SECONDARY

Per the US Air Force document, “Access to Colombia will further its strategic partnership with the United States. The strong security cooperation relationship also offers an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America to include mitigating the Counternarcotics capability.” This statement clearly evidences that counternarcotics operations are secondary to the real objetives of the military agreement between Colombia and Washington. Again, this clearly contrasts the constant declarations of the Uribe and Obama governments insisting that the main focus of the agreement is to combat drug trafficking and production. The Air Force document emphasizes the necessity to improve “full spectrum” military operations throughout South America – not just in Colombia – in order to combat “constant threats” from “anti-US governments” in the region.

PALANQUERO IS THE BEST OPTION FOR CONTINENTAL MOBILITY

The Air Force document explains that “Palanquero is unquestionably the best site for investing in infrastructure development within Colombia. Its central location is within reach of…operations areas…its isolation maximizes Operational Security (OPSEC) and Force Protection and minimizes the US military profile. The intent is to leverage existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible, improve the US ability to respond rapidly to crisis, and assure regional access and presence at minimum cost. Palanquero supports the mobility mission by providing access to the entire South American continent with the exception of Cape Horn…”

ESPIONAGE AND WARFARE

The document additionally confirms that the US military presence in Palanquero, Colombia, will improve the capacity of espionage and intelligence operations, and will allow the US armed forces to increase their warfare capabilities in the region. “Development of this CSL wil further the strategic partnership forged between the US and Colombia and is in the interest of both nations…A presence will also increase our capability to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach, support logistics requirements, improve partnerships, improve theater security cooperation and expand expeditionary warfare capability.”

The language of war included in this document evidences the true intentions behind the military agreement between Washington and Colombia: they are preparing for war in Latin America. The past few days have been full of conflict and tension between Colombia and Venezuela. Just days ago, the Venezuelan government captured three spies from the Colombian intelligence agency, DAS, and discovered several active destabilization and espionage operations against Cuba, Ecuador and Venezuela. The operations - Fénix, Salomón and Falcón, respectively, were revealed in documents found with the captured DAS agents. Approximately two weeks ago, 10 bodies were found in Táchira, a border zone with Colombia. After completing the relevant investigations, the Venezuelan government discovered that the bodies belonged to Colombian paramilitaries infiltrated inside Venezuelan territory. This dangerous paramilitary infiltration from Colombia forms part of a destabilization plan against Venezuela that seeks to create a paramilitary state inside Venezuelan territory in order to breakdown President Chávez’s government.

The military agreement between Washington and Colombia will only increase regional tensions and violence. The information revealed in the US Air Force document unquestionably evidences that Washington seeks to promote a state of warfare in South America, using Colombia as its launching pad. Before this declaration of war, the peoples of Latin America must stand strong and unified. Latin American integration is the best defense against the Empire’s aggression.


*The US Air Force document was submitted in May 2009 to Congress as part of the 2010 budget justification. It is an official government document and reaffirms the authenticity of the White Book: Global Enroute Strategy of the US Air Mobility Command, which was denounced by President Chávez during the UNASUR meeting in Bariloche, Argentina this past August 28th. I have placed the original document and the non-official translation to Spanish that I did of the relevant parts relating to Palanquero on the web page of the Center to Alert and Defend the People “Centro de Alerta para la Defensa de los pueblos”, a new space we are creating to garantee that strategic information is available to those under constant threat from imperialist aggression.

Original document in English: http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/original_in_english_air_for.pdf

Traducción no oficial al español: http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/traduccion_del_documento_de.pdf

DOCUMENTO OFICIAL DE LA FUERZA AÉREA DE EEUU REVELA LAS VERDADERAS INTENCIONES DETRÁS DEL ACUERDO MILITAR CON COLOMBIA

Un documento oficial del Departamento de la Fuerza Aérea del Departamento de Defensa de Estados Unidos revela que la base militar de Palanquero, Colombia “garantiza la oportunidad para conducir operaciones de espectro completo por toda América del Sur”. Esta afirmación contradice las explicaciones dadas por el presidente Álvaro Uribe y el Departamento de Estado de EEUU sobre el acuerdo militar firmada el pasado 30 de octubre entre Washington y Colombia. Los gobiernos de Colombia y EEUU han mantenido públicamente que el acuerdo militar se trata solamente de operaciones y actividades dentro del territorio colombiano para combatir el narcotráfico y el terrorismo interno. El presidente Uribe ha reiterado múltiples veces – incluso en la reunión de la UNASUR en Bariloche, Argentina – que su acuerdo militar con Washington no afectará a sus vecinos. No obstante, el documento de la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU confirma lo contrario e indica que las verdaderas intenciones y objetivas detrás del acuerdo son para poder realizar operaciones militares a nivel región para combatir la “amenaza constante…de los gobiernos anti-estadounidenses”.

El acuerdo militar entre Washington y Colombia autoriza el acceso y uso de siete instalaciones militares en Palanquero, Malambo, Tolemaida, Larandia, Apíay, Cartagena y Málaga. Adicionalmente, el acuerdo permite “el acceso y uso de las demás instalaciones y ubicaciones” por todo el territorio colombiano, sin restricciones. Junto con la imunidad plena que este acuerdo otorga a los militares, civiles y contratistas estadounidenses que entrarán a territorio colombiano en el marco del convenio, la autorización para que EEUU utilice cualquier instalación en el país, incluyendo a los aeropuertos comerciales, significa una entrega total de la soberanía colombiana.

El documento de la Fuerza Aérea destaca la importancia de la base militar de Palanquero y habla sobre la necesidad de invertir 46 millones de dólares para acondicionar la pista aérea, las rampas y varias otras instalaciones de la base para convertirla en una Localidad de Cooperación en Seguridad (CSL) de EEUU. “Estableciendo una Localidad de Coperación en Seguridad (CSL) en Palanquero apoyará la Estrategia de Postura del Teatro del Comando Combatiente (COCOM) y demostrará nuestro compromiso con la relación con Colombia. El desarrollo de este CSL nos da una oportunidad única para las operaciones de espectro completo en una sub-región crítica en nuestro hemisferio, donde la seguridad y establidad están bajo amenaza constante de las insurgencias terroristas financiadas por el narcotráfico, los gobiernos anti-estadounidenses, la pobreza endémica y los frecuentes desastres naturales…”

No es dificil imaginar cuales gobiernos en Suramérica son considerados por Washington como “anti-estadounidenses”. Sus constantes declaraciones agresivas contra Venezuela y Bolivia, e incluso Ecuador, comprueban que son los países del ALBA que son percibidos por Washington como una “amenaza constante”. De clasificar un país “anti-estadounidense” es considerarlo un enemigo de Estados Unidos. Bajo este contexto, es lógico pensar que EEUU reaccionaría frente a una región llena de “enemigos” con una agresión militar.

LA LUCHA CONTRA EL NARCOTRÁFICO ES SECUNDARIA

Según el documento, “El acceso a Colombia profundizará la relación estratégica con los Estados Unidos. La fuerte relación de cooperación en seguridad también ofrece una oportunidad para conducir operaciones de espectro completo por toda Suramérica, incluyendo el apoyo para las capacidades de combatir el narcotráfico.” Aquí es evidente que la lucha contra el narcotráfico es un asunto secundario. Este hecho contradice las explicaciones dados por los gobiernos de Colombia y Washington que han intentado aparentar que el objetivo principal del acuerdo militar es para combatir el narcotráfico. El documento de la Fuerza Aérea prioritiza a las operaciones militares continentales necesarias para combatir “amenazas constantes”, como los gobiernos “anti-estadounidenses” en la región.

PALANQUERO ES LA MEJOR OPCIÓN PARA EL ALCANCE CONTINENTAL

El documento de la Fuerza Aérea explica que “Palanquero es sin duda el mejor lugar para invertir en el desarrollo de la infrastructura dentro de Colombia. Su ubicación central está dentro del alcance de los áreas de operaciones…en la región…y su ubicación aislada ayudará…minimizar el perfil de la presencia militar estadounidense. La intención es utilizar la infrastructura existente...mejorar la capacidad de EEUU para responder rápidamente a una crisis y asegurar el acceso regional y la presencia estadounidense…Palanquero ayuda con la misión de movilidad porque garantiza el acceso a todo el continente de Suramérica con la excepción de Cabo de Hornos…”

ESPIONAJE Y GUERRA

Adicionalmente, el documento de la Fuerza Aérea confirma que la presencia militar estadounidense en Palanquero, Colombia aumentará las capacidades de espionaje e inteligenica, y permitirá a las fuerzas armadas estadounidenses aumentar sus capacidades para ejecutar una guerra en Suramérica. “El desarrollo de [la base en Palanquero] profundizará la relación estratégica entre EEUU y Colombia y está en el interés de las dos naciones…[La] presencia también incrementará nuestra capacidad para conducir operaciones de Inteligencia, Espionaje y Reconocimiento (ISR), mejorará el alcance global, apoyará los requisitos de logística, mejorará las relaciones con socios, mejorará la cooperación de teatros de seguridad y aumentará nuestras capacidades de realizar una guerra expedita.”

El lenguaje de guerra de este documento evidencia las verdaderas intenciones detrás del acuerdo militar entre Washington y Colombia: están preparándose para una guerra en América Latina. Los últimos días han estado llenos de conflictos y tensiones entre Colombia y Venezuela. Hace días, el gobierno venezolano capturó tres espías del Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS) de Colombia – su agencia de inteligencia y espionaje – y descubrió varias operaciones activas dirigidas a la desestabilización y el espionaje contra Cuba, Ecuador y Venezuela. Las operaciones Fénix, Salomón y Falcón, respectivamente, fueron reveladas por documentos que encontraron junto a los funcionarios capturados del DAS. Hace dos semanas, también fueron hallados 10 cadáveres en el estado Táchira por la frontera con Colombia. Luego de realizar las investigaciones pertinentes, el gobierno venezolano descubrió que los cuerpos pertenecían a un grupo de paramilitares colombianos que se habían infiltrado a territorio venezolano. Esta peligrosa infiltración paramilitar desde Colombia forma parte de un plan de desestabilización contra Venezuela que busca crear un para-estado dentro del territorio venezolano y asi debilitar al gobierno del Presidente Chávez.

El acuerdo militar entre Washington y Colombia sólo aumentará esta tensión y violencia regional. Ahora con la información revelada en el documento de la Fuerza Aérea de Estados Unidos se hace evidente – sin duda ninguna – que Washington esta buscando promover una guerra en Suramérica, utilizando a Colombia como su base de operaciones. Frente a esta declaración de guerra, los pueblos de América Latina tienen que mostrar unidad y fuerza. La integración latinoamericana es la mejor defensa contra la agresión imperial.


*El documento del Departamento de la Fuerza Aérea de Estados Unidos fue redactado en mayo 2009 como parte de la justificación del presupuesto para el 2010 enviado por el Pentágono al Congreso estadounidense. Es un documento oficial de la Fuerza Aérea y reafirma la veracidad del Libro Blanco: La Estratégia de Movilidad Global del Comando Aéreo de la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU que fue denunciado por el Presidente Chávez durante la reunión de la UNASUR en Bariloche el 28 de agosto pasado. He puesto el documento y la traducción no-oficial de los segmentos sobre la base de Palanquero en la página web del Centro de Alerta para la Defensa de los pueblos, un espacio que estamos construyendo para asegurar que las denuncias e información estratégica esten disponibles para que los pueblos puedan defenderse con contundencia frente a la constante agresión imperial.

Documento original en inglés: http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/original_in_english_air_for.pdf

Traducción no oficial al español: http://www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/traduccion_del_documento_de.pdf

Monday, November 2, 2009

HONDURAS: A VICTORY FOR "SMART POWER"




Henry Kissinger said that diplomacy is the “art of restraining power”. Obviously, the most influential ideologue on US foreign policy of the twenty first century was refering to the necessity to “restrain the power” of other countries and goverments in order to maintain the dominant world power of the United States. Presidents in the style of George W. Bush employed “Hard Power” to achieve this goal: weapons, bombs, threats and military invasions. Others, like Bill Clinton, used “Soft Power”: cultural warfare, Hollywood, ideals, diplomacy, moral authority and campaigns to “win the hearts and minds” of those in enemy nations. The Obama administration has opted for a mutation of these two concepts, fusioning military power with diplomacy, political and economic influence with cultural penetration and legal manuvering. They call this “Smart Power”. Its first application is the coup d’etat in Honduras, and as of today, it’s worked to perfection.

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that “we should use what has been called “smart power”, the complete range of tools that are at our disposal – diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural – choosing the correct tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With “smart power”, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy.” Clinton later reinforced this concept affirming that the “wisest path will be to first use persuasion.”

So, what is intelligent about this concept? It’s a form of politics that is difficult to classify, difficult to detect and difficult to deconstruct. Honduras is a clear example. On one hand, President Obama condemned the coup against President Zelaya while his ambassador in Tegucigalpa held regular meetings with the coup leaders. Secretary of State Clinton repeated over and over again during the past four months that Washington didn’t want to “influence” the situation in Honduras – that Hondurans needed to resolve their crisis, without outside interference. But it was Washington that imposed the mediation process “led” by President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, and Washington that kept funding the coup regime and its supporters via USAID, and Washington that controlled and commanded the Honduran armed forces, involved in repressing the people and imposing a brutal regime, through its massive military presence in the Soto Cano military base.

Washington lobbyists also wrote the San José “agreement”, and in the end, it was the high level State Department and White House delegation that “persuaded” the Hondurans to accept the agreement. Despite the constant US interference in the coup d’etat in Honduras – funding, design, and political and military support – Washington’s “smart power” approach was able to distort public opinion and make the Obama administration come out as the grand victor of “multilateralism”.

What “smart power” achieved was a way to disguise Washington’s unilateralism as multilateralism. From day one, Washington imposed its agenda. On July 1st, spokespeople for the Department of State admitted in a press briefing that they had prior knowledge of the coup in Honduras. They also admitted that two high level State Department officials, Thomas Shannon and James Steinberg, were in Honduras the week before the coup meeting with the civil and military groups involved. They said their purpose was to “impede the coup”, but how, therefore, can they explain that the airplane that forcefully exiled President Zelaya left from the Soto Cano military base in the presence of US military officers?

The facts demonstrate the truth about Washington and the coup in Honduras, and the subsequent successful experiment with “smart power”. Washington knew about the coup before it happened, yet continued to fund those involved via USAID and NED. The Pentagon aided in the illegal forced exile of President Zelaya, and later, the Obama administration used the Organization of American States (OAS) – during a moment at which it was on the border of extinction – as a façade to impose its agenda. The discourse of the Department of State always legitimated the coup leaders, calling on “both parts…to resolve the political dispute in a peaceful way through dialogue.” Since when is an illegal usurper of power considered a “legitimate part” capable of dialogue? Obviously, a criminal actor who takes power by force is not interested in dialoguing. Based on this Washington logic, the world should call on the Obama administration to “resolve its political dispute with Al Qaeda in a peaceful way through dialogue, and not war”.

The Obama/Clinton “smart power” achieved its first victory during the initial days of the coup, persuading the member states of the OAS to accept a 72-hour wait period to allow the coup regime in Honduras to “think through its actions”. Soon after, Secretary of State Clinton imposed the mediation efforts, led by Arias, and by then, so much space had been ceded to Washington, that the US just stepped in and took the reigns. When President Zelaya went to Washington and met with Clinton, it was obvious who was in control. And that’s how they played it out, buying more and more time up until the last minute, so that even if Zelaya returns to power now he will have no space or time to govern.

The people were left out, excluded. Months of repression, violence, persecution, human rights violations, curfews, media closures, tortures and political assasinations have been forgotten. What a relief, as Subsecretary of State Thomas Shannon remarked upon achieving the signature of Micheletti and Zelaya on the final “agreement”, that the situation in Honduras was resolved “without violence”.

Upon signature of the “agreement” this past October 30th, Washington immediately lifted the few restrictions it had imposed on the coup regime as a pressure tactic. Now they can get visas again and travel north, they don’t have to worry about the millions of dollars from USAID, which hadn’t even been suspended in the first place. The US military in presence in Soto Cano can reinitiate all their activities – oh wait, they never stopped in the first place. The Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) of the Pentagon affirmed just days after the coup that “everything is normal with our armed forces in Honduras, they are engaging in their usual activities with their Honduran counterparts.” And Washington is already preparing its delegation of elections observors for the November 29th presidential elections – they are already on their way.

Forget about Cold War torturer Billy Joya who was scheming with the coup regime against the resistance; or the Colombian paramilitary forces sent in to help the coup regime “control” the population. Don’t worry anymore about the sonic warfare LRAD weapon used to torture those inside the Brazilian embassy in an attempt to oust Zelaya from the building. Nothing happened. As Thomas Shannon said, “we congratulate two great men for reaching this historic agreement”. And Secretary of State Clinton commented that “this agreement is a tremendous achievement for the Hondurans.” Wait, for who?

In the end, the celebrated “agreement” imposed by Washington only calls upon the Honduran Congress – the same Congress that falsified Zelaya’s resignation letter in order to justify the coup, and the same Congress that supported the illegal installation of Micheletti in the presidency – to determine whether or not it wants to reinstate Zelaya as president. And only after receiving a legal opinion from the Honduran Supreme Court – the same one that said Zelaya was a traitor for calling for a non-binding poll vote on potential future constitutional reform, and the same one that ordered his violent capture. Even if the Congress’ answer is positive, Zelaya would not have any power. The “agreement” stipulates that the members of his cabinet will be imposed by those political parties involved in the coup, the armed forces will be under the control of the Supreme Court that supported the coup, and Zelaya could be tried for his alleged “crime” of “treason” because he wanted to have a non-binding poll on constitutional reform.

Per the “agreement” a truth commission would supervise its implementation. Today, Ricardo Lagos, ex president of Chile and staunch Washington ally, was announced as the leader of the Honduran Truth Commission. Lagos is co-director of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Dialogue, a right wing think tank that influences Washington’s policies on Latin America. Lagos also was charged with creating a Chilean version of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), la Fundación Democracia y Desarrollo, to “promote democracy” in Latin America, US-style. Upon leaving the presidency in 2006, Lagos was named President of the Club of Madrid – an exclusive club of ex presidents dedicated to “promoting democracy” around the world. Several key figures involved in currently destabilizing left-leaning Latin American governments are members of this “club”, including Jorge Quiroga and Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (ex presidents of Bolivia), Felipe González (ex prime minister of Spain), Václav Havel (ex president of the Chech Republic) and José María Aznar (ex prime minister of Spain), amongst many others.

In the end, “smart power” was sufficiently intelligent to deceive those who today celebrate an “end to the crisis” in Honduras. But for a majority of people in Latin America, the victory of Obama’s “smart power” in Honduras is a dark and dangerous shadow closing in on us. Initiatives such as ALBA have just begun to achieve a level of Latin American independence from the dominant northern power. For the first time in history, the nations and peoples of Latin America have been collectively standing strong with dignity and sovereignty, building their futures. And then along came Obama with his “smart power”, and ALBA was hit by the coup in Honduras, Latin American integration has been weakened by the US military expansion in Colombia, and the struggle for independence and sovereignty in Washington’s backyard is being squashed by a sinister smile and insincere handshake.

Bowing before Washington, the crisis in Honduras “was resolved”. Ironically, the same crisis was fomented by the US in the first place. There is talk of similar coups in Paraguay, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Venezuela, where subversion, counterinsurgency and destabilization increase daily. The people of Honduras remain in resistance, despite the “agreement” reached by those in power. Their determined insurrection and commitment to justice is a symbol of dignity. The only way to defeat imperialist agression – soft, hard or smart - is through the union and integration of the people.

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes longer.” – Henry Kissinger