US NAVAL FLEET TO BE POSITIONED OFF THE COAST OF SOUTH AMERICA

Submitted by DanPolley on 14 May, 2008 - 07:42.

US NAVAL FLEET TO BE POSITIONED OFF THE COAST OF SOUTH AMERICA Written by Victor Figueroa Clark Tuesday, 13 May 2008

The news from the Pentagon that the US is re-establishing its Fourth Naval Fleet in the Caribbean, ostensibly to "build confidence and trust among nations through collective maritime security efforts" unfortunately shows that the days a US military threat to Latin America are far from over. Furthermore, it underlines the need for the countries of Latin America to develop a new, independent military doctrine that replaces the US-backed and developed ‘National Security Doctrine’ which provided the rationale for so much terror and bloodshed throughout the region between the 1950s and 1990s, and which subordinated Latin American security interests to those of their northern neighbour. (The Fourth Fleet has not been used in the region since 1950.)

The re-establishment of the Fourth Fleet comes at a time when much of Latin America is emerging from under the imperial shadow, with Paraguay being the latest country to elect a left-wing leader. Paraguay joins a growing list of countries seeking an independent, more egalitarian and just path towards development, in direct contrast to the decades of US backed dictatorships and neoliberalism. This growing independence is a direct threat to North American domination of the region, traditionally seen as its strategic resource reserve and ‘backyard’.

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1283/1/

Final two paragraphs Such a re-alignment of Latin American militaries away from serving foreign interests is bound to be resisted fiercely by the United States government, and by its military industrial complex, who will doubtless categorise it as ‘threatening stability’ and being ‘anti-democratic’. As regional unity grows and coheres, it is likely that the US will ever more aggressively seek to sow discord and conflict among neighbours. Already the US has supported and helped plan a coup in Venezuela, has been accused of supporting the secession movement in Bolivia, and of assisting Colombia’s illegal and aggressive attack on Ecuadorean territory. It is highly unlikely that interference will end here, with the US already talking about extending the economic blockade of Cuba to include Venezuela.

The development of a capacity to resist aggression is not synonymous with the militarization of the region. Effective defence against external intervention is vital for economic and social development. Together with new visions of development based upon the concepts of solidarity and sustainability, a regional defensive doctrine forms part of the ongoing efforts to achieve true sovereignty. For too long the peoples of Latin America have been the victims of violence and terror, inflicted upon them by local elites in alliance with the US. It is time that they were able to stand up, and embark upon the construction of their societies independently and without fear.

© 2008 Upside Down World

‹ Got a Unasur? Recall Vote in Bolivia ›
( categories: )

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's called Balance of Power

Submitted by Daddy-YO on 14 May, 2008 - 10:31.

Not imperialism. The US is not occupying anyone's territory, yet. Not militarization, for the US military has bases all over the region already. The Caribbean is a major drug corridor, and this might slow that business down. Besides, Ortega's buddy Hugo Chávez is doing more than shooting his mouth off and giving away oil for pledges of allegiance, he's been importing arms from Russia for a while. Columbia has evidence that he's supplying arms to the FARQ; Chávez has openly admitted to giving them money.

“Last year Venezuela purchased $3 billion of military equipment from the Vladimir Putin regime. This summer, during a trip to Moscow, Chávez ordered five submarines, with the option of buying four more in the near future. In addition, Russia's Izhevsk Manufacturing Plant has reported that it will build two factories in Venezuela to manufacture Kalashnikov rifle-type AK-103 as well as ammunition for it. The objective is to have both plants completed by 2010.” From COHA, November 16th, 2007

AP, May 8, 2008: “Chávez says his government has not meddled in the domestic affairs of other Latin American nations, but would if Bolivian states now seeking greater autonomy from Bolivia's central government push for total independence.” So what he does in Nicaragua is not meddling, huh?

Hardly a Balance

Submitted by eldoc on 15 May, 2008 - 00:54.

The fact that there are U.S. bases all over the region is proof that it is Imperialism. The fact that it is a military fleet is proof that it is militarism. And the Colombian "evidence" comes from the magic laptop they retrieved after illegally invading Equador with the help of the U.S. military.

The United States spends more on armaments than ALL other world nations combined. The only way it would be a balance is if the entire world aligned behind Chavez, and then the balance would still be tipped slightly towards Washington.

Sending a naval fleet into the area will not slow down drug trafficking. It's the Navy, not the Coast Guard. The purpose of a naval fleet is to project power. They're not pulling guys over and performing searches. It also would not have any effect on arms shipments between Venezuela and Colombia because they share a land border. It's imperial saber rattling, plain and simple. There is nothing defensive about the U.S. presence in Latin America, as there is no country in Latin America that is a threat to the U.S. (though Reagan had everyone convinced that the Sandanistas were going to march to Texas).

So Chavez supplies arms/money to the FARC. The U.S. supplies arms/money to Uribe (billions every year). Uribe has at least as much blood on his hands as the FARC (though his targets tend to be labor organizers and reporters, not soldiers and government officials). Perhaps Chavez feels an affinity towards a group that has been struggling for decades against U.S. hegemony in the region. That sentiment would probably win an election overwhelmingly in any Latin American country (and then be overthrown by the CIA). The U.S. has been meddling in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries since the 19th century, overthrowing democratically elected governments, installing military dictators, backing coups, and on occasions even invading. None of these actions have been out of any concern for the well-being of the people in Latin America, and none of these actions have benefitted anyone other than the ruling oligarchs in those countries and the U.S. corporations invested there.

Considering the constant calls for "regime change" coming out of Washington (despite repeated elections), it would be prudent for Chavez to arm Venezuela and arm it well. The best he could hope for is to arm Venezuela to the point that a U.S. invasion would be too costly to be considered feasible (like in Iraq). All the oil in Venezuela couldn't buy enough armaments to make it an existential threat to the U.S.

It's all too clear what the motivations are behind this latest move. Washington has already proven that they don't care if there is democracy in Venezuela, or in Nicaragua for that matter, so long as the natural resources keep flowing north.

Speak softly and carry a big stick

Submitted by Daddy-YO on 15 May, 2008 - 10:02.

Hey Doc, the bases are there with the permission of those nation's governments. The USA is not the sovereign power within those territories. They may be the biggest, baddest dudes in the area, but they don't govern them. Yes, this is a military build-up, and the fleet will likely park itself within the Venezuela-Cuba-Nicaragua triangle. And yes, their presence says the obvious, "Look, this is how big my stick is."

The message is clearly directed toward Chávez, because of his interference and threat to interfere militarily in other Latin American countries. It's only one fleet. Hugo's got 5 or more subs now and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles, he's safe. The US would not invade Venezuela and, now more importantly, with the fleet's counterbalancing presence, Chávez will not be invading anybody else.

I suspect the US Navy has better surveillance equipment than the US Coast Guard. They won't bother to try to catch 'em, nor interdict the drug traffic, just alert the DEA and Coast Guard.

As you know Doc, I'm an American and I love Nicaragua. I can't defend all of my birth country's actions, but I do try to understand them. An industrious & inventive people built the USA and continue to direct its future. Natural resources are the inheritance of all men on earth. Some fight over them, gold, oil, land. But most trade, in a civil, economic fashion, for them. All men can benefit from the intelligent use of earth's resources. Some peoples don't realize that something underfoot, or messy like tar, or blowing in the wind is valuable to others, until they're shown. So people, countries deal with each other. I would like to see Nicaragua's geothermal and the winds of the isthmus of Rivas developed for clean power to the people, but it don't look like it'll happen anytime soon, for obvious reasons. (see current blog, http://www.nicaliving.com/node/12134)

The USA continues to buy Venezuelan crude, despite Exxon winning a freeze of $12 billion on their assets in international court, and, as a result, Chavez threatening to cut off oil shipments to the US. (He needs US refineries; Venezuelan oil has very high sulfur content and require special processing.) The US buys a bit more than 1 million barrels per day from Venezuela, 11% of the crude oil US imports daily, currently from its top 15 suppliers.

I admit I rankled at Democracy Now!'s language "Latin America is emerging from under the imperial shadow ..." ("Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows") & "This growing independence is a direct threat to North American domination.." Yeah, like the Canadians are such bullies. But that is the intent of Democracy Now!, to rankle, and if completely successful, to incite revolt, because it's news with more than just a heavy bias.

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” (Lewis Carroll)

Are you sure?

Submitted by eldoc on 15 May, 2008 - 11:07.

Hey Doc, the bases are there with the permission of those nation's governments.

Like Manta? Guantanamo? Comalapa? Those bases are there with the permission of U.S. puppet regimes, not with the "permission of those countries." Those regimes are now out of power (or soon to be in El Salvador), but the bases remain.

The message is clearly directed toward Chávez, because of his interference and threat to interfere militarily in other Latin American countries. It's only one fleet.

Interference? I can't beleive an ex-pat can fall for such propaganda. It was our friend Colombia that violated the sovereignty of it's neighbor. Colombia has the most powerful military in South America. Last I heard, all of Venezuela's troops were in Venezuela. I don't see any Venezuelan bases outside of Venezuela.

A single U.S. Navy fleet has more power than all South American countries combined. Look for them to be providing air support when Colombia attacks Venezuela.

we can't have oil..

Submitted by Doug on 15 May, 2008 - 07:33.

trading in anything but USD$'s, every oil producer that talks about it gets a 'little reminder' of the military kind. Gotta keep our fiat currency's value up some how, our Gross Domestic Product sure won't do it anymore.

-Doug

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

Doug's got it

Submitted by eldoc on 15 May, 2008 - 10:47.

trading in anything but USD$'s, every oil producer that talks about it gets a 'little reminder' of the military kind. Gotta keep our fiat currency's value up some how, our Gross Domestic Product sure won't do it anymore.

BINGO! I'm glad someone noticed.

I noticed

Submitted by fyl on 15 May, 2008 - 10:57.

But, every time I suggest something like that someone calls me a comspiracy theorist and/or Communist. Eventually, Joe Sixpack is going to figure all this out but it will probably be too late.

Commie......

Submitted by Doug on 15 May, 2008 - 11:14.

sorry I couldn't resist

-Doug, conspiracy nut, commie sympathizer, tree hugging, dirt worshiping, Birkenstock wearing, Cum-by-ya singer

P.S. Joe, keg beer is better

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

The Axis of Evil

Submitted by eldoc on 15 May, 2008 - 11:13.

Saddam stated that he would no longer accept USDs as payment for oil once the sanctions were lifted. Iran followed suit a couple months later. Then, North Korea stated that they would no long trade commodities in USDs. All of them decided to use Euros.

Within a couple months, they were dubbed the "Axis of Evil."

That's what this whole thing is about. That's what it has always been about. Conspiracy? Of course. I never understood why people think there are no conspiracies out there. When two or more people get together to plan a crime, it's a conspiracy.

When Chavez decides he no longer needs the worthless USD, look for the Colombian invasion (backed by U.S. air support).