Home > The Barr Code > Archives > 2008 > March > 19 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWary eye on South America
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Iraq and Afghanistan continue to enjoy top billing in America’s newspapers and on our television news programs. With untold billions of dollars flowing regularly into that part of the world and American soldiers continuing to be killed there, it’s no surprise our government and our media pay close attention. South America remains an afterthought for government policy-makers and news show producers. Whether we like it or not, that may soon change, as well it should.
Military tensions between Venezuela and Colombia, for example, flared earlier this month to a new and dangerous level when Venezuelan president and strongman Hugo Chavez massed armed forces at his country’s border with Colombia and threatened military action. This saber rattling, Chavez said, was in response to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe ordering a small military force into its western neighbor, Ecuador, to track down and kill a Colombian guerrilla leader operating from what had been the safe haven of a neighboring country (and who reportedly maintained contacts with Chavez).
While the outward signs of hostility have cooled (the two leaders exchanged a formalistic handshake at a recent meeting), such disruptions in this part of the world —- where the United States maintains significant, if often forgotten, interests —- ought to concern all Americans (especially those who drive cars).
Although the publicly stated reasons for the tensions between the Colombian and Venezuelan leaders relate to Colombia’s efforts to eradicate the leftist guerrilla threat that has plagued the country for decades, most observers know it is Colombia’s openly pro-U.S. stance that really rankles Chavez. The entire South American continent has long chafed under the benign neglect of one U.S. administration after another. Chavez has proven quite adept at drawing on that deep resentment to bolster his own position. His ability to wield influence in this manner, of course, is strengthened greatly by virtue of the fact that Venezuela sits atop major oil reserves and provides nearly 13 percent of our country’s daily oil imports (more than three times the amount of oil we import from Iraq).
Economic realities such as this should cause the United States to pay closer attention not only to Venezuela and other Andean countries such as Peru, Bolivia and Chile, but to the entire South American continent, which collectively is a massive trading partner for the United States. Not only oil, but huge quantities of raw materials and consumer products (coffee, for example) are offloaded daily at U.S. seaports and airports from ships and planes arriving from South America. American taxpayers, too, have a stake in what happens in this region. Billions in foreign aid flow into the region. On the darker side of the trade ledger, cocaine, marijuana and heroin from South and Central America fuel the appetites of drug users in American cities.
Yet for many in Washington, dealing with South American leaders and governments remains at best a necessity, and more often an irritant. Dealing with Venezuelan President Chavez has proved especially vexing for Washington. Many in our nation’s capitol view him as a comical figure, but in so doing fail to comprehend him or the culture from which he springs. Many of our leaders also do not understand Colombia’s president; refusing, for example, to acknowledge the risks Uribe has taken to assist the United States. Falling prey to such oversimplification and misunderstanding is not only wrong but also obscures whatever chances there are for improving our long-term economic, political and security interests in the hemisphere.
While Washington’s current national security worldview remains focused like a laser beam on Iraq and Afghanistan, fires smolder and burn elsewhere. Shifting at least a portion of that concern and those resources to South America, and especially to the Andean region that currently is near the boiling point, is critical to our security. There may not be weapons of mass destruction lurking in the jungles of Venezuela, Colombia or Ecuador (there weren’t in Iraq either, of course), but arms are flowing into the area. Venezuela, for example, is buying billions of dollars worth of Russian military equipment. Leftist guerrillas and narco-terrorists remain firmly entrenched in the region, and evidence that other terrorist groups are using the area for problematic purposes is mounting.
Even if the possible loss of a significant portion of our imported oil requirement does not wake the United States from the somnambulant manner in which it views Latin America, perhaps the growing security threat in that area will —- hopefully before a major crisis jars us awake.
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By NDEEB
March 19, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
I disagree. Don’t divert resources to South America. Our government rightly focuses on Iraq and Afghanistan because we want those places to be the theater of war—far away from the West. We are defining the scope and location of the conflict with our enemies. That is one of the great unsung virtues of the Iraq war decision. Like it or not, we are killing and capturing Al Qaeda in Iraq. Let’s keep it that way.
By Larry
March 19, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
“Like it or not, we are killing and capturing Al Qaeda in Iraq.”
Yeah, none of whom were in Iraq before we invaded it.
By ConservativeDem
March 19, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
By Larry March 19, 2008 9:31 AM “Yeah, none of whom were in Iraq before we invaded it.”
Yeah just like after we invaded Manhatten Al Qaeda showed up and blew up the towers. Larry do you really understand the Middle East agenda or just repeat “drive by media” headlines. I really like that phrase and it applies.
By The truth
March 19, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Liberals have to be the dumbest people on the planet. South America is a very dangerous place right now. Hugo Chavez needs to be killed or put in prison. I’d rather him be killed. Look for the appeasers Hillary and Obama to go running to befriend him soon. Also, why is it that Cynthia Tucker gets to write columns with no room for people to debate her? She is as racist as the Revvvv Wright. As a matter of fact, the ajc is a pretty racist newspaper.
By Larry
March 19, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
“Do you really understand the Middle East agenda”
Sadly I think I do. You, however, do not. My statement is more than a ‘drive by’ it is FACTUAL that Hussein had no ties to Al Qaeda and had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq until the turmoil created by our action there gave them an opening. One of us certainly has bought the party line from the media and the administration but its not me.
By zeke
March 19, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
As long as the socialists in our own government continue to idolize abhorrent tyrants like Castro, Chavez and the like, we will never be safe! As long as they and the students in our colleges are brainwashed into socialism and view as heroes the like of Che, we are doomed as a democratic conservative society! Yet, they do not understand that the US is the greatest country in the history of civilization and people from every other country want to come here, become citizens and have a great life! The lowest income citizens here have much more that some of the highest in other countries! Yes, thay would break down the borders to get here, not to get out! I do not see those who despise the US and tout it to be so bad leaving for a better place! THERE IS NONE!!!!!!!
By ConservativeDem
March 19, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
Larry! Once again—you are wrong! How does that hook feel? We went to war with Hussein for reasons approved by congress. Then the liberals and Al Qaeda showed up.
By ChristianProgressive
March 19, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
So which democratically elected government do we take out first? US intervention in South America usually means replacing a democracy with a bloodthirsty egomaniac who will do as we say. Thanks but no thanks.
By zeke
March 19, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
We should allow the CIA, military intelligence or the NSA to hire those who would eliminate thugs like Chavez, Castro, Kim, and the other leftists in Latin America and if necessary Putin, the ayatollas, etc. It would cause some short term confusion, but, in the long run, the world and the US would be a much better place!!!
By The truth
March 19, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
Jimmy Carter is a massive reason that we face threats from Iran. Billy Clinton is the reason that China has our technology. Osama or Hillary will be the reason we get nuked. Appeasement doesn’t work. Idiot libs seem to forget that Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. Look where that got us.
By zeke
March 19, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
Christian progressive? What a line of crap that is! The so called progressives are trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes! Truth is they are socialist populists who are pushing to make the US a socialist nightmare! If you think these nuts in SA are freely democratically elected in free elections, you are brain dead! So J. Carter said they were free and fair! He would not know it if he saw it! He thinks US elections are worse than those! Wake up! Get some intelligence and look to make the US still the greatest country in history! To make the world better, we need to eliminate communists, socialists, progressives, religious zealots and nuts like Chavez and Castro! All socialism must be eliminated!
By Larry
March 19, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
“We went to war with Hussein for reasons approved by congress.”
So what? Since when does the approval of Congress lend legitimacy to anything? All of the so-called reasons used to justify this war have been proven false at this point.
Besides, I really don’t see how your statements disprove what I said. Just saying I’m wrong is not the same thing as proving it. At least you admit that Al Qaeda showed up in Iraq after the war started though.
By Copyleft
March 19, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
That’s a great vision of freedom you have there, Zeke: “Agree with me or die.” Yep, that’s certainly what made America great.
Do you still long for the comfortable religious fascism of Iran? Because Clark Howard can point you to some great airfares.
By The truth
March 19, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
This is great. I know that polls are stupid and don’t mean a whole lot right now but here is a poll I found on yahoo news. It states that Obamas lead has all but evaporated. I hope that the dems keep fighting up until November. This is proof that liberals can not be trusted with power. They’re too stupid to know what to do with it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080319/plnm/usapoliticspolldc
By ConservativeDem
March 19, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
Chavez is a thug! That being a fact, Chavez will start a war with another South American country. Then America will invoke or use some earlier decree to protect the southern hemishphere to get rid of him. I have it all planned out. We send in the liberals to cause chaos and confusion then send the progressive liberals to drive them out. We win two ways! Less liberals in the US and liberals get to live in a real socialist governed country.
By Rush Limbo
March 19, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
Hey, ConservativeDem. Please take the Dem off your screen name.
And using the term “Drive-by Media” tells the world you let me do your thinking for you. Tune in tomorrow, I’ll clue you in on talking to real girls
By Geezer
March 19, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this
Thanks to the controlled media, most Americans are completely misinformed about South American economic history. The CIA has manipulated SA governments for decades (a well documented fact). Many democratically elected governments were overthrown because they posed a threat to American corporations, not to America itself. The “Billions” in aid that Barr speaks of go into the pockets of these brutal regimes, not to the average peasant. Hugo Chavez understands this; that is why he hates America.
The CIA could very well be manipulating the government in Columbia to bring on a war with Venezuela. This could destabilize the Venezuelan economy and lead to a CIA backed coup. Once the coup is over, and the Venezuelan economy is bankrupt, the World Bank will step in and offer loans. Unfortunately, these loans come with stipulations that require the country to sell off big portions of their natural resources, often for pennies on the dollar, to American corporations.
By What's wrong with you people?
March 19, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
I am a conservative. When did fools who consider ANY sort of diplomacy a sign of weakness co-opt that term and make me a liberal? Since when is it “appeasement,” to seek to have friendly relations with other nations and actually try to make allies of enemies? When did leadership through diplomacy become a negative? The attitude is just flippin’ dumb.
By Larry
March 19, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
“Since when is it “appeasement,” to seek to have friendly relations with other nations and actually try to make allies of enemies? When did leadership through diplomacy become a negative?”
Since George Bush II and his neo-con nuts took over the government. I agree with you, it is a stupid to think that way but we live in an age when the stupid are in positions of power (on both sides of the aisle I might add lest I get called a ‘liberal’ too).
By Copyleft
March 19, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
“Diplomacy is appeasement/cowardice,” eh?
I can’t wait to get some smarter folks running things in Washington than this bunch. Sheesh.
By NEOCON
March 19, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this
let’s nuke china, venezuela, and the middle east. Turn it up a notch Bush should stay in power until everyone who is a threat is toast hell yeah
By Big Stick
March 19, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this
“Then America will invoke or use some earlier decree to protect the southern hemishphere to get rid of him.”
It’s called the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Look it up.
By Roswellian
March 19, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this
The point you missed Bob, is that Venezuelan oil comprises about 11 percent of U.S. foreign crude oil imports, which amounts to 60 percent of Venezuela’s total exports. And until there are more refineries elsewhere in the world that can handle Venezuela’s form of extra-heavy crude, Venezuela is stuck with the US as a major trading partner. And Venezuela’s government relies on oil exports for half of its income, which helps to fund Chavez’s programs for the poor, who elected him to office.
So for all his blustering, I doubt Chavez will do anything to permanently alienate the US. He has much more to lose than the US does.
By Edurri
March 19, 2008 6:13 PM | Link to this
Uribe misunderstood? He has done absolutely nothing but intensify Colombia’s armed conflict and it spewed into neighboring countries. The problem in the region is that Colombia’s leader has adopted America’s foreing policies and now we can see the results. A clear violation by Colombia of the OEA and UN resolutions and a near international conflict happening.
By AMERICANTRUTH
March 19, 2008 7:05 PM | Link to this
Like most Americans, most of you don’t know the facts. Colombia is our most loyal and grateful ally (even more than Canada)in the Western Hemisphere. Their government AND the majority of their people love and support this country even when most Americans don’t know and don’t care that they even exist. I know because my father is from Colombia and I have been there several times.
Colombian President Uribe holds a 84% approval rating by his people which is higher than any other democraticaly leader in this hemisphere. Uribe has done more than anyone before him to fight the narco-terrorists and the commie leaning guerillas (FARC) who depend on drugs, kidnapping, and terrorism to fund their 50 year communist insurgency.
You should remmember the days of Pablo Escobar when Colombia was raveged by violence, corruption, and fear. 20 years ago, Colombia was in the same state of inept and violence due to drugs that both Mexico and Afghanistan are in today. Uribe put a stop to that and challenged the FARC head on. That is why the Colombian people love (maybe the leaders of Mexicao and Afghanistan should take a cue and learn from Uribe’s example). Chavez hates Uribe because he is such a loyal ally to the United States and Uribe never gives Chavez an inch.
The incursion into Ecuador in question was after FARC’s #2 Raul Reyes who had a safe haven terrorist camp in Ecuador where he could plan kidnappings, assasinations, drug deals, arms deals, and spread his Communist manifisto using a Satellite phone that Chavez used to communicate with him (this is how Colombia intercepted his calls and located his position). Using the information found on Reyes’ computer, Colombia gave a tip to Interpool which led to the arrest of one of the world’s most notorious Russian arms dealers(who also supplies Hezbollah) in Thailand. Reyes’ computer also uncovered information that FARC was in the market to buy shoulder-fire missiles that could be used to shoot down military aircraft and commercial airliners. Reyes’ computer also showed that Chavez had given $300 million dollers to FARC recently and that the FARC was in the market to buy 50 grams of URANIUM that could then be resold at a profit in the black market to other terrorists. Who is to say these weapons could not have ended up in the United States.
The AMERICAN PEOPLE should be grateful to Colombia and President Uribe for being a loyal and trusted friend of this country by going after these narco-terrorists in a region littered with left-leaning socialists governments that rather kiss butt to Castro, Iran, Russia, or China in order to spite and undermine American interests.
By gonzalez
March 19, 2008 7:10 PM | Link to this
No Mr. Barr, I’m not concerned with your media’s purported lack of interest in the rest of the hemisphere known as America. In fact, I’m elated. Leave us alone! After almost 150 years of noxious ‘white man’s burden’ paternalism I think you owe us at least that much. The fact that only after the Rio Group summit (a meeting at which the United States was not present) were the nations in question able to reach any sort of diplomatic understanding would tell you something if you had any intellectual honesty at all.
By boochan
March 19, 2008 8:26 PM | Link to this
There are entirely too many errors of fact from Congressman Barr and many of the commentators to list them all. Instead I will just comment on the complete misrepresentation of fact by ‘Americantruth’, and some interesting omissions from the Congressman’s article. The entire foundation of your argument is that you visited Colombia. Have you ever visited FARC-controlled areas of Colombia where Uribe is hated and leaders such as Reyes are loved? Those places do exist. And they are often the target of Uribe’s right-wing death squads, armed with US weapons. I find it odd that people get so outraged that Chavez and/or the FARC would purchase foreign weapons, but billions of dollars worth of American weapons to Uribe and his fascists is perfectly acceptable. Colombia violates international law, Chavez protects his borders, and somehow many Americans find a way to criticize the latter. I wonder why the main article fails to mention the democratic nature of Chavez’ government. He was elected freely, and has never exhibited the traits of tyrant. In reality, following the US-backed coup, he pardoned the vast majority of those who attempted to overthrow democracy. As for the national television station that supported the coup, he simply revoked their license to broadcast on PUBLIC airwaves. I can’t imagine a US leader so magnanimous in victory. It is also odd that there is no mention of Chavez offer to sell oil to the US at $50/barrel (less than half the current market cost). His vision of a long-term deal meant that the US got oil at a tremendous discount now, and Venezuela was protected from a price free-fall in the future. Of course, Chavez would have used the profits to help feed and educate his people, ensuring that even the poorest citizens could meet their basic needs, and the US government has shown all too clearly how much it resents any expression of humanity.
By Tom Lauerman
March 20, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Dear “Larry”,
Well, Saddam Hussein MAY have had no ties with Al Qaeda before 9-11, but we now know for certain that he has NO ties to Al Qaeda, don’t we?
Grow up, little man. A murderous, genocidal villain has been purged from the earth. If you can’t say thank-you, then please remain quite while business is attended.
By ChristianProgressive
March 20, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Yeah Zeke, let’s just throw everyone you disagree with into a ditch to die. Then the world will be so much better when you are the only one left.
Thank God we live in a democracy. Conservative, liberal, moderate, progressive, whatever, most of us recognize that there are better ways to get things done without putting a death sentence on everyone else. Most of us are glad we have our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I suggest you learn to love people as people, no matter their opinion.
By Tom Lauerman
March 20, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
CP,
Hello?….. The United States of America is a Republic! Did none of you Libs take Poly-Sci 101? Geeeez!
By lolo
March 20, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Some of these leaders with the exception of the Castros will likely get themselves thrown out of office by coups, votes, riots or what have you.
An example of the US meddling too much in the leadership of these God-forsaken lands is in Hati. Just how many times have we helped to depose of Jean Bertrand Aristide and place him back into office. It’s like a tennis match. Things still suck there.
By deegee
March 20, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
How about curbing the appetite of the American drug consumer? Wouldn’t that make a big difference in the dynamics of Colombian politics, and for that matter the entire South and Central American political dynamic.
By cool Tony
March 20, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
hey now DeeGee…don’t go messing with my blow.
By Silly
March 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this
I have a question. Will there be troops or money left when a serious threat gets on US soil? We keep sending all of our troops and money to other countries to protect our country.
By MrLiberty
March 20, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
One can hardly call what the US government has been up to in central and south america “benign neglect.” From our appalling intervention against Columbia in the secession of Panama in 1903 and our “illegal” treaty with Panama regarding the canal from the same year, there has been the typical corruption filled, politically-motivated behavior of US administrations in the area. Yes, the canal is important, but to think that it could not have been built without the oppression and hositility generated in Coloumbia and Panama is ridiculous.
Then there is the War on Drugs. Numerous times Mr. Barr mentions narco-terrorists and drugs, but fails to put the two together in an intellegent argument that would bring significant peace to the land. The billions we spend in foreign aid and the billions more spend in herbacide spraying are killing thousands, while empowering the military dictatorships and terrorist groups in the area. The high cost and value of drugs exist only becase they are illegal and Mr;Barr knows it. No other crops are grown because pot and coke are illegal and more profitable. Both guerilla and presidente alike benefit from the illegal drug trade. This same insanity has overtaken the united states, where the war on drugs is now responsible for the US imprisoning more than 1 in every 100 persons - the majority black and hispanic. In South America, we send in planes to kill peasants with aerial chemical sprays and missionaries in tiny Cessnas.
South and Central America are wonderful places with riches and resources that could and should benefit everyone in this hemisphere. Marijuana and cocaine have significant markets in the US that these countries could well legally supply were it possible. Citizens would find themselves free from the oppression of local drug cartels, as well as political leaders who thrive off the drug trade. Hemp culitivation could become a mainstay, eliminating the need for planting the environmental foe - sugar cane. But most importantly, none of this will ever be possible if we continue the current policy of Dictator support, foreign aid, and the Drug war. As with the middle east, we should be trading, travelling, and maintaining a position of neutrality. Bob, maybe you should ask Ron Paul for a reading list. Doesn’t look like the Libertarians recommended any good ones to you when you came on board.