“We want there to be a prosperous neighborhood. It’s in the interests of the United States that prosperity spreads throughout our neighborhood,” Bush said at the White House.

US President George W. Bush signs the Andean Trade Preference Act Extension in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House in Washington, DC. Image: AFP

The act implements trade preferences for Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru.

Bush used the opportunity to once again appeal for more, and full, free trade agreements with those countries; months ago, Democrats in Congress did everything in their power from preventing such a deal from passing. Their rhetoric could rightfully be labeled anti-free trade.

Ironically, Democrats often say they are in favor of helping the poor, and working with other countries, but seem to oppose plans nowadays that would help those countries help themselves. In the end, research shows that free trade is benificial for all involved. “Congress is coming back to Washington next month. One of their top priorities should be to approve this vital agreement with Colombia — as well as with Panama and South Korea. These free trade agreements will strengthen our relationships with key allies,” Bush said.

Bush also warned Bolivia that he would seek to put a freeze to trade agreements with the country, until and unless it would finally act against its drug industry.

©2008 PoliGazette . All Rights Reserved.

Chinese President Hu Jintao(R) meets with visiting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, on Sept. 24, 2008.(Xinhua/Liu Weibing)

In a press release, the Venezuelan Foreign Relations Ministry said Vivanco and Wilkinson "have done violence to the constitution" and "assaulted the institutions" of Venezuela by "meddling illegally in the internal affairs of our country."

The ministry also said the HRW report is linked to the "unacceptable strategy of aggression" of the United States government. The ministry said the expulsion of Vivanco and Wilkinson was in the interest of "national sovereignty" and "the defense of the people against aggressions by international factors."

"HRW has issued reports that are [sic] critical of the Chávez administration in the months leading up to crucial Venezuelan elections in the past, raising suspicion that the reports seek to sway Venezuelan voters against the president."

"...the American press seems to trust the Bush government and its adjuncts with all things Venezuelan and has once again simply passed on and proliferated the official story. I wish my betters in the press corpse would wake up and smell the disinformation."

"And then, there’s the matter of our intelligence services hanging out in NGOs. (I suppose, our overseas operatives can’t all work at the local embassy.) A friend of mine from El Salvador reminds me that during the war, a planeful of “humanitarian workers” was shot down and apparently, somehow it was full of US government operatives instead. It was shot down close to the capital and Rolando believes it was the government, not the guerillas, that shot it down. The government had had enough of the “Peace Corps” meddling with their affairs, allies or not. The few survivors of the crash were executed on the spot, it was later determined. Guerillas didn’t operate that close to San Salvador during the war, so this was a terrible case of a US client state sending back a message to Washington.

More recently, as Amy Goodman has reported, arriving Peace Corps volunteers and young visiting scholars were solicited to spy for our government when they went to be briefed at our embassy in Bolivia. They were there for a welcome to the country and instead, they were told to spy on Venezuelans and on Cubans. It must be very upsetting to believe you are in Bolivia to work on hunger or to write a study on literacy and then to have your own Ambassador direct you to violate the trust of the very people you look forward to working with. These kids hadn’t even unpacked before they were enlisted to violate international law."

So what do you all think? Was this an "accident" or something more sinister?

The plane was a U.S. Navy plane. You'll remember that about a month ago the U.S. Navy reestablished an fleet in the Caribbean.

Via / BBC

Fortunately the whole issue came, apparently, to a reasonable solution. But many of us, know-it-all as we are, think that's not the whole point. Some say that Chavez should be expelled or ‘neutralized' somehow for being ‘dangerous' to the peace on Latin America. Others say that the US and Uribe, their Colombian host, are the real villains of the Latin soap opera. Among the radical speeches and the media echoing, we could find some very reasonable voices in the Brazilian blogosphere shedding some welcome light on the entire matter.

Andre Deak blogs about an article he wrote to Agência Brasil[PT] back in 2006, about the US military bases at Ecuador and Colombia, titled “Geopolitics of the Siege”, and makes some considerations[PT]…:

“A maior base norte-americana na América Latina, a base de Manta, fica no país governado por Rafael Correa. Presidente que publicamente é contra a política dos EUA para a região, e disse que não renovará o acordo para manter essa base.”

“The biggest North-American military base in Latin America, the Manta base, stands in the country ruled by Rafael Correa. The president that publicly stood against the US policy for the region, and declared that he will not renew the treaty to keep that base.”

… and quotations in his blog post about the conflict and it's unspoken background:

” ‘A partir de 2002, Colin Powell garantiu uma verba adicional de 731 milhões de dólares para financiar a participação do Equador, Bolívia e Peru no Plano Colômbia. O papel do Equador era central, principalmente porque os Estados Unidos utilizavam a estrutura da Base de Manta, com capacidade de controlar o espaço aéreo da região Amazônica, do Canal do Panamá e da América Central. A eleição do presidente Rafael Correa interrompeu o apoio do Equador ao Plano Colômbia, já que uma de suas principais medidas foi anunciar que não renovaria o acordo com os Estados Unidos para o controle da Base de Manta', conta Maria Luisa Mendonça.

[…]

Outra leitura interessante vem do Beto Almeida, no texto Colômbia: Israel sul-americano?: o assassinato de ‘Raul Reyes, conhecido por sua característica de exímio negociador político, também deve ser entendido como um alerta ao governo de Sarkosy para que não se meta em negociações que contrariem a linha estadunidense de militarização da região amazônica'.”

” ‘Since 2002, Colin Powell has guaranteed an additional funding of 731 million US Dollars to pay for the participation of Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru on the Plan Colombia. Ecuador played a central role, mainly because the United States used the resources of the Manta Base, capable of controling the entire Amazon, Panama channel and the Central America's airspace. The election of the president Rafael Correa interrupted the Ecuador support to the Plan Colombia, once one of [the president's] first measures was to announce that the treaty that gave to the US the control of Manta Base was not to be renewed', says Maria Luisa Mendonça. […] Another interesting view [on the situation] comes from Beto Almeida, in his text Colombia: South-American Israel?: ‘the murder of Raul Reyes, known for his caracteristic of being a great political negotiator, may be understood as an alert to the Sarkozy government, that it shouldn't meddle with negotiations that are contrary to the US line of action of militarizing the Amazon region'.”

João Vergilio writes, in an article[PT] sent by Luis Nassif to the blog Projeto.br[PT], about the connection between this crisis and the hipocrisy surrounding War on Drugs and the drug traffic issue:

“Insisto: enquanto não pusermos sobre a mesa a questão do narcotráfico, todas as discussões ficam sem lastro. É em torno do tráfico e da política antidrogas americana que todas as questões desse conflito estão articuladas. Sem essa insana War on Drugs patrocinada pelos EUA, não haveria as Farc, nem Uribe. E Chávez não passaria de um reformador social um pouco voluntarista e desastrado.”

“I insist: until we don't agree on discussing the drug traffic issue, all the other debates become meaningless and unrooted. All the issues on this conflict are wrapped around the drug traffic and the US anti-drugs policy. If it weren't for the insane War on Drugs sponsored by the US, there would be no FARC or Uribe. And Chavez would be nothing more than a somewhat blunderous and a-little-too-willful social reformer.”

In the same article, Hugo Albuquerque is rather pessimistic about the motivations and the resolution of the conflict, and calls our atention to the possible US plans for Colombia in the near future:

“Não creio que a situação acaba por aí.

A Colômbia, que dos anos de 90 pra cá se tornou o cavalo de tróia dos EUA na região, fez essa ação para intimidar a Venezuela, não o Equador.

Isso é o indicativo de que se os EUA tentarem algo contra a Venezuela isso se dará via Colômbia do mesmo modo que o Iraque foi usado nos anos 80 para combater o Irã.”

“I don't believe the situation is really over. Colombia, that in the nineties became the ‘trojan horse‘ of the US in the region, took this line of action to intimidate Venezuela, not Ecuador. That is indicative that if the US will try anything against Venezuela, that would be made using Colombia as a proxy in the same way the Iraq was used [by the US] in the eighties to fight against Iran.”

Pedro Doria considers the complexity of the situation and of the world, and stands in a certain neutrality, criticizing both sides with almost the same severity[PT]:

“Enquanto o mundo anda mais complicado do que jamais foi, esquerda e direita abraçam velhos conceitos. Não importa a evidente violência com que agem as Farc, tampouco o fato de que a sociedade colombiana está exausta delas. Se é uma guerrilha, ainda mais com discurso de esquerda, há de ser bom. Não é. São só golpistas assassinos, torturadores. Uma gente que prende outras por anos a fio. Já passamos desta fase na América Latina. Seria bizarro o suficiente se não houvesse pelo mundo gente à direita que jura combater um comunismo inexistente e que, além de se embaralhar na bandeira religiosa, age com um anti-cientificismo grosseiro.”

“As the world becomes more complex than ever before, left and right embrace old concepts. It's doesn't matter how evidently violent are the FARCs, or how tired have the Colombian society grown of them. If it's a guerrilla and, better yet, a guerilla with a leftist speech, then it must be good. It's not. They're only scheming murderers and torturers. People that kidnap and imprision others for many years long. We're all over this phase in Latin America. That would already be bizarre enough, if there wasn't in this world so many people at the right that swear to God they're fighting a communism that doesn't exist, entangling themselves into religious flags and acting with a gross anti-scientificism.”

Considering that there are no easy, maniqueistic, answers in these times, Doria stands against illegality and power abuse and, thus, views both sides with suspicion:

“Não é difícil ter problemas com Uribe e com Chávez ao mesmo tempo. Basta não achar que qualquer ilegalidade é justificada para combater o outro lado.”

“It's not that hard to have qualms about Chaves and Uribe at the same time. It's just a matter of not thinking that any illegal measure is justified to fight against the other side.”

This is, indeed, a very complex world living very complex times. Although many are still pursuing and repeating easy answers and shallow judgements about the situation, it's becoming clear that we must make a deep reflection before saying anything or taking sides. There is a lot of misinformation trickling along the unnending lines of political lies and media supported babble. I think Andre Deak says it all when he closes his above quoted post remarking that…:

“O momento não pode ser lido apenas pelo que contam os jornais. A primeira vítima desse conflito, como em todos, é a verdade.”

“This moment can't be read only by what the newspapers are saying. The first victim of this conflict, like in any other, is the truth.”

What should we do when we can't be sure about what is happening around us? Maybe the solution is listening to as many voices as possible, be it thunderous and loud like the voices of governments and big media outlets or whispered like the voices of common people, and try to make out who, and why, is trying to fool us. This is as close to the truth we can get. That is why Global Voices Online exists. We're listening. Are you?

Article written in colaboration with José Murilo Junior. 

This makes for an interesting contrast with the United States, where even the two “liberal” Democratic presidential candidates defended the Uribe government’s action.

* Barack Obama: “[T]he Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The recent targeted killing of a senior FARC leader must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region.”
* Hillary Clinton: “The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. … Rather than criticizing Colombia’s actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups.”

John McCain, reports CBS news, sees in this crisis a reason to bring back the super-hard-line “Just Say No” drug policies of twenty years ago.

“I want to reiterate our partnership and friendship with President [Alvaro] Uribe and the government of Colombia. … They are a vital ally. … I hope that tensions will be relaxed, President Chavez will remove those troops from the borders - as well as the Ecuadorians - and relations continue to improve between the two. … [The FARC] are a terrorist organization and one that I believe we must assist the Colombian government in repressing.”

For his part, President Bush’s three-minute statement on the crisis yesterday was partly a show of support for Colombia, partly a call for a diplomatic solution, and mostly a “commercial” for congressional ratification of the Colombia free-trade agreement.

President Uribe told me that one of the most important ways America can demonstrate its support for Colombia is by moving forward with a free trade agreement that we negotiated. … Our country’s message to President Uribe and the people of Colombia is that we stand with our democratic ally. My message to the United States Congress is that this trade agreement is more than a matter of smart economics, it is a matter of national security. If we fail to approve this agreement, we will let down our close ally, we will damage our credibility in the region, and we will embolden the demagogues in our hemisphere.

A State Department spokesman sent a more helpful message on Monday. After making clear that the U.S. government supports Colombia, Tom Casey called forcefully for diplomacy.

”[L]ook, I think right now our focus is on trying to encourage Colombia and Ecuador to work out diplomatically the concerns that have been raised about this military strike. Certainly, we expect that that’s how this is going to be resolved. And I don’t think anybody at this point ought to be talking about military action.”

This sentiment was echoed in a letter to the OAS (PDF), released Tuesday, which bore the signatures of fifteen members of the U.S. Congress. The message, calling for OAS leadership of a diplomatic solution, is the only Colombia-related letter in memory signed by both the hawkish Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana) and the dovish Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts).
While this letter was signed by both parties’ senior members of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere (Burton and Rep. Eliot Engel [D-New York]), the ranking Republican on the full Foreign Affairs Committee was absent. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) put out her own, more bellicose statement.

The courageous men and women of the Colombian National Police, its intelligence unit and the country’s security services have shattered the myth that FARC’s leadership is invincible. … Recent State Department reports cite deepening ties between the Chavez regime and Iran and Cuba, and an unwillingness by Chavez to prevent Venezuelan territory from being used as a safe haven by FARC. These reports are alarming and require the careful attention of our government and those of our neighbors. … Rather than rattle sabers, Colombia’s neighbors need to play a more constructive role in bringing about a durable peace and removing FARC’s foreign sanctuaries that have been exposed by this operation.