US State Dept Spokesman Tight-Lipped on Anti-Venezuelan Actions

The following sheds some light on the dubious US position "100%" in support of Colombian President Uribe, whose bribing of Venezuelan officials to kidnap an opposition spokesman in Venezuela (who didn't appear on any official Colombian or international wanted lists until after his kidnapping had occurred) helped the international media oligopoly to label Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias a supporter of terrorism. My comments are italicized. Colombia is increasingly becoming the US supported Israel for South America, and is the second largest recipient of US government dollars behind Israel.

State Dept. Daily Press Briefing for January 26 -- Transcript
Daily Press Briefing Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC
January 26, 2005

George.
QUESTION: In light of the Panamanian delegation here, I'm going to ask a Latin America question.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, thank you. They will be honored, I am sure.
QUESTION: What is the State Department doing to enlist the cooperation of other hemispheric countries in the conflict between Colombia and Venezuela about the fact that a FARC leader was given a safe haven in Venezuela?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we've talked to other countries in the hemisphere about the situation specifically with regard to Venezuela and then -- or with regard to Venezuela and specifically with regard to the situation between Venezuela and Colombia. We have asked our hemispheric partners to urge Venezuela to adopt a more conciliatory and constructive position and to end any relationship it might have with the Armed Forces of Colombia, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the FARC, and Colombia's other terrorist organization. (In short, we've applied pressure to our client states to pressure Venezuela to accept this and further incursions by Colombia into sovereign Venezuelan territory, and to pressure Venezuela to stop supporting - not that we're officially accusing them of support, but I'll toss you a vague assertion to help influence public opinion - political and/or armed opposition to Uribe's US sponsored economic policies)
We have, indeed, shared our thoughts with countries like Brazil (Brazil wants a seat on the UN Security Council and needs our support, so we've twisted their arm on this for a promise of support, which may never materialize without consequence to us) and we appreciate Brazil's efforts to constructively engage both President Chavez and President Uribe in efforts to withdraw (from calling attention to our plot to label Chavez a supporter of terrorism in public opinion without the need to provide factual details)-- to resolve this dispute.
We have also highlighted our support for Peru's efforts as Andean Community president to help resolve the dispute. (Peru is very important to us because its President Toledo was elected by a wide margin on anti-corruption posturing, and under our teaching has instead instituted radical free market economics on par with Colombia's to result in a 10% approval rating. Thus, we do not want to see advances in Colombia's opposition because it may embolden Peruvian opposition) Other countries' efforts are, as I said, worthwhile and important as well. (We don't want to see people in other South or Central American nations become emboldened to slow the free flow of natural resources to North America without benefit to the nation that owns the resources) We think everybody in the hemisphere should be concerned about this, should encourage Venezuela to adopt a non-confrontational approach, (toward incursions of sovereignty by our client states) encourage them to ensure that there is no support whatsoever coming from Venezuela for terrorist groups (political and economic opposition to Uribe's radical free market economics and his refusal to negotiate with opposition) that are operating in Colombia, (at the same time giving free reign to Colombian state sponsored terrorist groups to operate toward the overthrow of democracy in Venezuela) and thereby to have a basis for working out their differences with Colombia in an amicable fashion.
QUESTION: You alluded to a list the other day that Colombia handed to Venezuela concerning terrorists --
MR. BOUCHER: I think I talked about reports of a list. I'm not sure I was able to confirm it.
QUESTION: All right. Well, can you advance the ball at all today?
MR. BOUCHER: Don't think so. (Don't press me. I know Granda wasn't on any list and don't want that to come up, and I don't want to be pressured later to admit that the "list" that Colombia provided Venezuela was only for media purposes to portray Venezuelan President Chavez as a supporter of terrorism, and that the list will eventually prove to be a farce. It's bs and I know it)
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: So, as you discuss with your partners in the hemisphere, it seems that all of the emphasis is on talking to Venezuela about Venezuela adopting a different approach, (in a manner disturbingly similar to telling Palestinians that peace will only come when they quit defending themselves and their assets) or is there any sort of work that can be done with the (Israelis, ah-) Colombians, I mean, over the Venezuelan --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I said, (we won't talk directly to Uribe about it because we don't want to tell him on one hand to breach Venezuelan sovereignty, and other the other hand call him to account for it. It would frankly make us look like fools. Instead, out of the public eye,) the Brazilians are talking to both the Colombians and the Venezuelans. The Andean president, the Peruvians, are talking to both countries as well. So certainly anybody in the hemisphere that is trying to encourage a peaceful solution to these problems needs to talk to both sides. But I think in terms of the (economic) issues at stake here and the principles (of free liberation of natural resources) at stake here, no support for any terrorists (opposition) has got to be one of the paramount issues to resolve the dispute.
QUESTION: And while that one's paramount, one of the complaints from Venezuela is that there was some kind of abuse of its sovereignty because of the alleged bribing of its own officials. Are people talking to Colombia about that?
MR. BOUCHER: I think people are talking to Colombia and Venezuela about all aspects of the dispute. (and encouraging Chavez to accept this kind of future of foreign intervention in domestic affairs)
QUESTION: Do you have any view as to whether Colombia, perhaps, should have tried to extradite one or more of these people, or do you think they handled it properly?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any view on specifics (that I would like to discuss publicly) because I (would like you to) think the specifics are not completely clear. We certainly don't think that (spokesmen for opposition to our man Uribe) FARC members should be allowed to roam around other places and other countries in the neighborhood (and be able to present their view of the economic equation) with seeming impunity. (We prefer for Uribe to eliminate our opposition quietly and out of public view, instead of through diplomatic channels where motives may be revealed and questioned)
QUESTION: New topic?
MR. BOUCHER: New topic. Let's go

Wash Post Passes Off Propaganda As News

As my first post, I will present a recent rant by radical free-marketeer Marcela Sanchez that was presented in the paper as news. The original article is in normal font, and my comments are in parentheses and italicized:

Uribe Not Just Another Chavez

By Marcela Sanchez
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, January 20, 2005; 10:30 PM

WASHINGTON -- (US supported right wing extremist) Colombian President Alvaro Uribe (who's administration is second in receipt of US government dollars behind Israel) is a man of unbending determination (to sell off Colombia's natural resources to international investors for handsome bribe money which will exit the country and appear in foreign banks in the same manner as that of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and to murder or eliminate any reasonable resistance to his plan, called Plan Colombia in the US). Obsessed with denying Colombia's (Uribe's, not Colombia's) insurgents any refuge until they are serious about peace, (the so-called insurgents are Uribe's opposition in Colombia's 40 year old civil war and control or influence half of the country. Note the striking resemblance of Sanchez's statement to ultra-right hardliners in Israel toward Palestinians whose land is illegally being taken and occupied) he ordered the capture of Rodrigo Granda, (he relayed Washington's order to bribe Venezuelan security officials to capture Granda) an international spokesman of Colombia's largest insurgency group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), (It would seem to be natural common sense for neighbors of Colombia to be on speaking terms with both sides in Colombia's civil war to assure security and help domestic business function effectively in trade with Colombia) who had been living a comfortable life in Venezuela. (As opposed to the 70,000 FARC members who are living comfortable lives in Columbia. Also, please note the Granda was not on any kind of official Colombian wanted list nor that of Interpol until after his kidnapping.)
Granda was arrested by Colombian police in the border town of Cucuta, Colombia, after (bribed)Venezuelan authorities seized him in Caracas and handed him over. (Uribe then lied or was lied to by trusted military officials and said that Granda was captured in Colombian territory) What might have been celebrated (in Washington) at the time as a victory for international law enforcement cooperation (between Washington and Bogota) took a nasty turn when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claimed (correctly) that Colombia had "bribed'' Venezuelan officials to kidnap Granda. Decrying this violation of Venezuela's sovereignty, Chavez withdrew his ambassador from Bogota, ordered the suspension of trade deals with Colombia and demanded an apology from Uribe. (Actually, he first demanded an apology, and when Uribe refused he pulled the ambassador and suspended trade)

Although Venezuelan officials later softened Chavez's reaction a bit, (I haven't read this anywhere else, except that Venezuelan President Chavez said that he didn't want to let the US ruin relations between Uribe and Venezuela) his comments marked the beginning of the biggest crisis between the two nations in years. For their part, Colombian officials said they did no more than pay a "reward'' for information about Granda. (Actually, US officials supplied the information as confirmed in a State Department briefing on 24 Jan: MR. ERELI: "Well, I mean, to the extent that we encourage the Government of Venezuela to act on information that there are terrorists resident on their territory and using their territory for terrorist activity, I guess you could say we're involved. But -- and, you know, to the extent that we help provide information and share information, yes. But that's what we're doing." For the entire and very revealing transcript, click here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0501/S00253.htm As for the "reward" for this information, one can only wonder which of Colombia's natural resources it will be.) They said that they will prove they tried to secure his arrest and that of other FARC leaders in Venezuela through official and diplomatic routes. (A vague statement with no time from from un-named Colombian 'officials' such that no one can be held accountable when it fails to materialize.)
We may never (want to) know all the details of a crisis that hinges largely on competing versions of events. (And even if we do, we certainly won't publish them!) Without a doubt, Uribe's actions confirmed the beliefs of many of his (US) supporters that he will do whatever it takes to achieve a lasting peace in Colombia. (And without a doubt, the same people believe, at least officially, that they are achieving peace in Israel, Iraq and Haiti by liberating formerly sovereign natural resources and assassinating those who dare to defend their sovereignty and assets.) But he also emboldened opponents who say the United States' staunchest ally in South America has little regard for rule of law and chose expediency over due process. (Yeah, like at least put the guy on a wanted list and give the Venezuelan government the chance to react.)
They charge that Uribe is so fanatical about his agenda that he is little different from Washington's nemesis in the region -- Hugo Chavez. (I haven't seen that 'charge' anywhere else. I think most people would rather say that Uribe is so fanatical about his agenda that he is little different from, say, Donald Rumsfeld, or Karl Rove.)
In Colombia, in particular, Uribe and Chavez are depicted by some opinion-makers (the international oligopoly of mass media conglomerates that often incorrectly report facts to further their own interests) as two caudillos of old -- shortsighted leaders who share a heightened sense of nationalism, an authoritarian bent and a disregard for institutional channels that put their nations at risk. (And the reaction they're hoping for is to sway public opinion to not react so negatively as to be disruptive when the Marines are sent in to liberate assets.)
Here in Washington, nongovernmental organizations in particular believe Uribe has simply shown his stripes. They say Uribe's latest move recalls his persistent and impassioned attacks on human rights groups and others who dare question him on his peace efforts with right-wing paramilitary (terrorist) groups. (Including his proposition that the perpetrators of the worst kinds of imaginable acts of torture, destruction, and mass murder of innocents should walk as free men) If anything, they add, Washington's unconditional support has made Uribe believe he can stand above the law and adopt foreign tactics not unlike Washington's (and US supported Israel's) pre-emptive strike policy.

There is little doubt that Uribe committed some kind of an affront to Venezuelan sovereignty. Uribe (the US) distrusted the highest authorities in Venezuela to assist him in detaining Granda and acted without their consent, a fact suggested by the Colombian government's assertion that they have concrete evidence (from the US, see State Dept. press briefing above, who incidentally were consistently wrong on such basic 'facts' as the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) showing members of the FARC frequently hide in Venezuela with high-level acquiescence.
But it was Chavez who -- a month later (after investigations had taken place and reports made portraying the reality of what had transpired)-- heightened the situation into a crisis. (Demanding an apology for the bribing of public officials is a crisis?) Perhaps it was an attempt to please his political base and garner some kind of solidarity from an international community more and more sensitive about issues of sovereignty. (Perhaps Uribe's move was an attempt to please his US based political base and garner some kind of solidarity from the US and its client states) But his belated reaction did more to highlight his unpredictability (took the oligopoly by surprise, did he? Or is this statement just intended to label him unpredictable?) than to convince anyone he suddenly had become an advocate for international law. (Is this supposed to imply that somehow he is not an advocate for international law without providing any details at all? Was the US a supporter of international law when it vetoed the creation of an International Court that could hold it accountable, or does it always seem to operate outside of international law? South of Texas, the US seems to have trouble following its own laws. Anyone remember the Iran-Contra affair and Oliver North defying the US Congress even an explanation? What about the overthrow of democratically elected Presidents in the Southern hemisphere?)
In fact, Chavez has rejected any assistance from the international community (US client states who the US wants involved in what should be a bilateral discussion) to resolve the crisis (to Uribe's benefit), including offers of mediation from Peru, (who's US supported President has a 10% approval rating) Brazil (who sent troops to Haiti upon US request to help control the opposition created when democratically elected Aristide was overthrown by US supported thugs, and itching for a seat on the UN Security Council) and Mexico (ultra-right free trade advocates involved in their own suppression of leftward leaning Zapatista rebels.) Instead, Chavez, who sees the dispute in personal (bi-national) terms, would prefer a handholding session (a reconciliation of common trade interests) only after Uribe has asked him for forgiveness. (apologized for the illegal breach of sovereignty)
To his credit (as viewed by the current US administration), Uribe has offered to solve the crisis by creating a joint commission to investigate what happened and reach a proper (as dictated by him and other US client states) resolution to the crisis. He has also reached out to other (client state) neighbors, acting like a (US backed) leader convinced that he cannot go it alone (because of the serious nature of his and his bosses' miscalculation as to the negative effects of the action on public opinion.) Indeed the onus is on Uribe to convince (all, not just the US client states) his neighbors, even if he cannot convince his critics, that the Granda case was the exception (please trust me, I won't do it again) that proves the rule -- international cooperation (international persecution of political opposition) is the best way to defeat Colombia's internal terrorism (Civil war based on economics) threat. (to the health of his administration)

During his first days in office, Uribe spoke eloquently about how Colombia's conflict requires "unconventional, imaginative and transparent solutions.'' With the Granda arrest, Uribe has clearly shown he can be unconventional. (How is it unconventional or imaginative to do what the government who pays you billions of dollars without accountability says to do?) Now he could use imagination and transparency to maintain international (with the US) cooperation and reaffirm his distinction from Chavez. (For lessons on imagination, perhaps he should talk with Mr. Rumsfeld: wildly inaccurate war cost calculations, comments that deteriorating security situation in Iraq only proves that freedom now exists because these insurgents are expressing themselves, Mr. Cheney: Saddam Hussein supported the terrorists who acted on 11 September 2001, and no, I won't turn over my notes on the secret Energy Task Force meetings, or Mr. Bush: Don't 'mis-underestimate' me)

Marcela Sanchez's e-mail address is desdewash@washpost.com.

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to the wild world of reality, a rare experience in modern life. Have you tired of reading obviously slanted accounts of world events? Have you seen an incredible event that never made the mainstream media because it didn't serve their interests? Well, this is my attempt to do my part to cut through the politics and expose the true nature of worldwide events. Back to work now.