Archive for the Evo Morales Category

“Obama’s All-out Global War against an American Asylum Seeker” by Wayne Madsen [Strategic Culture Foundation]

Posted in Anti-China propaganda exposure, Bolivia, China, China-bashing, Ecuador, Evo Morales, George W. Bush, Hong Kong, National Security Agency / NSA, Obama, Rafael Correa, State Department, US drone strikes, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, Wikileaks on July 12, 2013 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Some unnecessary racially discriminatory slants of the writer have been removed – Zuo Shou

11.7.2013

President Barack Obama has met his unlikely match in a former Army Special Forces recruit-turned CIA technician-turned National Security Agency contractor. Obama has issued what amounts to an «all-points-bulletin» for Edward Snowden who, in May, left his job at NSA Hawaii as a contractor for Booz Allen Hamilton and departed Honolulu for Hong Kong with a treasure trove of classified documents pointing to NSA’s massive electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant and billions of people around the world.

Obama, who fancies himself as a cool-under -fire seasoned politician from the rough and tumble south side of Chicago clearly did not like being upstaged by a young…privacy-minded intelligence specialist who grew up in North Carolina and the Maryland suburbs of Baltimore. After all, Obama inherited from George W. Bush the most intrusive surveillance powers ever amassed in a president of the United States and he was not about to have an impudent young man…embarrassing the…president…

…In the case of U.S. Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, charged with releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, including over 250,000 State Department cables, Obama personalized his war against whistleblowers by making the following pre-trial statement: «We are a nation of laws. We don’t let individuals make decisions about how the law operates. He [Bradley Manning] broke the law!» Once again, as he has shown with ordering drone murders of U.S. citizens abroad, Obama has shown he has no problem being judge, jury, and sometimes, executioner. By personalizing his attempt to snatch Snowden, Obama made his quest political, not criminal. That alone makes Snowden a political refugee worthy of being granted asylum by any reasonable measure of international law.

Obama, who has never mastered the intricacies of diplomacy, began making global demands that Snowden be returned immediately to the United States to face what Obama’s supporters called «justice». In the official request to officials of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for Snowden to be extradited to the United States, the U.S. State Department was so hasty it provided a wrong middle name for Snowden, James instead of Joseph, and no passport number. Hong Kong said it could not process an erroneous and incomplete extradition request from Washington. The Obama administration, acting like a Third World tin horn dictatorship, responded by threatening to cancel Hong Kong’s liberal mutual visa agreement with the United States and other unspecified sanctions.

The State Department immediately revoked Snowden’s passport but he managed to travel to Moscow on a safe conduct document issued by the Ecuadorian consul in London, Fidel Narvaez, which was a decision that earned a strong rebuke from Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa. The corporate media then reported that Correa rejected Snowden’s asylum request in Ecuador when no such decision had been made. What Correa said was what many other countries said. Snowden’s asylum request in Ecuador could only be considered if he were physically present on Ecuadorian soil. Correa would not guarantee safe passage from Moscow to Ecuador.

When Snowden flew to Moscow with an obvious wink and a nod from China, the United States threatened the Chinese with retaliatory action, even though Snowden’s revelations blew a giant hole in Washington’s propaganda about America being constantly subjected to Chinese state-sponsored computer hacking. In fact, Snowden’s revelations to the South China Morning Post provided evidence that NSA was targeting civilian networks and computers in China and Hong Kong, including those serving hospitals and universities. Hong Kong demanded an explanation from the United States. China was able to show Obama as a supreme hypocrite…

…Obama has maintained a personal vendetta against all national security whistleblowers but in the case of Snowden, Obama has become a driven Captain Ahab in search of his prey. Obama will stop at nothing to capture Snowden as he showed with his actions against[Bolivian President] Morales’s plane, reported Pentagon contingency plans to force the Moscow-to-Havana Aeroflot plane to land in Miami had Snowden been aboard, and threats of trade sanctions against various countries considering granting Snowden asylum.

Obama’s post-pubescent looking Press Secretary Jay Carney arrogantly declared that Snowden «should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel other than travel that would result in him returning to the United States».

Ironically, people around the world, regardless of ethnicity, began cheering for [Snowden] against the…bully [Obama]. Obama’s personalization of his war against a single American citizen has not only made Snowden a political refugee but an American folk hero.

Excerpted; full article link here: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/07/11/obama-all-out-global-war-against-american-asylum-seeker.html

http://www.strategic-culture.org

“James Clapper, EU play-acting, and political priorities” by Glenn Greenwald [Guardian]

Posted in Bolivia, CIA, Evo Morales, France, National Security Agency / NSA, NSA, Obama, Portugal, Spain, Torture, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, Western nations' human rights distortions on July 11, 2013 by Zuo Shou / 左手

– Fixations on denouncing Edward Snowden distract, by design, from the serious transgressions of those who are far more powerful –

July 3, 2013

The NSA revelations continue to expose far more than just the ongoing operations of that sprawling and unaccountable spying agency. Let’s examine what we have learned this week about the US political and media class and then certain EU leaders…

Full article link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/03/clapper-lying-snowden-eu-bolivia

(c) Guardian News & Media Ltd

“Why Regime Change in Libya?” by Ismael Hossein-zadeh [Globalresearch.ca]

Posted in Africa, Algeria, Bahrain, Bolivia, Brazil, BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Cameron, Chile, China, Cuba, DPR Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Evo Morales, Fidel Castro, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hugo Chavez, IMF - International Monetary Fund, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kim Jong Il, Libya, Morocco, NATO, Nicaragua, Nigeria, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Russia, Sarkozy, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Syria, Tunisia, U.K., US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, Venezuela, WTO, Zionism on September 19, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

June 20, 2011

In light of the brutal death and destruction wrought on Libya by the relentless US/NATO bombardment, the professed claims of “humanitarian concerns” as grounds for intervention can readily be dismissed as a blatantly specious imperialist ploy in pursuit of “regime change” in that country.

There is undeniable evidence that contrary to the spontaneous, unarmed and peaceful protest demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain, the rebellion in Libya has been nurtured, armed and orchestrated largely from abroad, in collaboration with expat opposition groups and their local allies at home. Indeed, evidence shows that plans of “regime change” in Libya were drawn long before the insurgency actually started in Benghazi; it has all the hallmarks of a well-orchestrated civil war [1].

It is very tempting to seek the answer to the question “why regime change in Libya?” in oil/energy. While oil is undoubtedly a concern, it falls short of a satisfactory explanation because major Western oil companies were already extensively involved in the Libyan oil industry. Indeed, since Gaddafi relented to the US-UK pressure in 1993 and established “normal” economic and diplomatic relations with these and other Western countries, major US and European oil companies struck quite lucrative deals with the National Oil Corporation of Libya.

So, the answer to the question “why the imperialist powers want to do away with Gaddafi” has to go beyond oil, or the laughable “humanitarian concerns.” Perhaps the question can be answered best in the light of the following questions: why do these imperialist powers also want to overthrow Hugo Cavez of Venezuela, Fidel Castro (and/or his successors) of Cuba, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Rafael Correa Delgado of Ecuador,Kim Jong-il of North Korea, Bashar Al-assad of Syria and Evo Morales of Bolivia? Or, why did they overthrow Mohammad Mossadeq of Iran, Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala, Kusno Sukarno of Indonesia, Salvador Allende of Chile, Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras?

What does Gaddafi have in common with these nationalist/populist leaders? The question is of course rhetorical and the answer is obvious: like them Gaddafi is guilty of insubordination to the proverbial godfather of the world: US imperialism, and its allies. Like them, he has committed the cardinal sin of challenging the unbridled reign of global capital, of not following the economic “guidelines” of the captains of global finance, that is, of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and World Trade Organization; as well as of refusing to join US military alliances in the region. Also like other nationalist/populist leaders, he advocates social safety net (or welfare state) programs—not for giant corporations, as is the case in imperialist countries, but for the people in need.

This means that the criminal agenda of Messrs Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, and their complicit allies to overthrow or kill Mr. Gaddafi and other “insubordinate” proponents of welfare state programs abroad is essentially part of the same evil agenda of dismantling such programs at home. While the form, the context and the means of destruction maybe different, the thrust of the relentless attacks on the living standards of the Libyan, Iranian, Venezuelan or Cuban peoples are essentially the same as the equally brutal attacks on the living conditions of the poor and working people in the US, UK, France and other degenerate capitalist countries. In a subtle (but unmistakable) way they are all part of an ongoing unilateral class warfare on a global scale — whether they are carried out by military means and bombardments, or through the apparently “non-violent” processes of judicial or legislative means does not make a substantial difference as far as the nature or the thrust of the attack on people’s lives orlivelihoods are concerned.

In their efforts to consolidate the reign of big capital worldwide, captains of global finance use a variety of methods. The preferred method is usually non-military, that is, the neoliberal strategies of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), carried out by representatives of big business disguised as elected officials, or by the multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the WTO. This is what is currently happening in the debt- and deficit-ridden economies of the United States and Europe. But if a country like Libya (or Venezuela or Iran or Cuba) does not go along with the neoliberal agenda of “structural adjustments,” of outsourcing and privatization,and of allowing their financial system to be tied to the network of global banking cartel, then the military option is embarked upon to carry out the neoliberal agenda.

The powerful interests of global capitalism do not seem to feel comfortable to dismantle New Deal economics, Social Democratic reforms and welfare state programs in the core capitalist countries while people in smaller, less-developed countries such as Libya, Venezuela or Cuba enjoy strong, state-sponsored social safety net programs such as free or heavily-subsidized education and health care benefits. Indeed, guardians ofthe worldwide market mechanism have always been intolerant of any “undue” government intervention in the economic affairs of any country in the world. “Regimented economies,” declared President Harry Truman in a speech at Baylor University (1947), were the enemy of free enterprise, and “unless we act, and act decisively,” he claimed, those regimented economies would become “the pattern of the next century.” To fend off that danger, Truman urged that “the whole world should adopt the American system.” The system of free enterprise, he went on, “can survive in America only if it becomes a world system” [2].

Before it was devastated by the imperialist-orchestrated civil war and destruction, Libya had the highest living standard in Africa. Using the United Nations statistics, Jean-Paul Pougala of Dissident Voice reports,

“The country now ranks 53rd on the HDI [Human Development Index] index, better than all other African countries and also better than the richer and Western-backed Saudi Arabia. . . . Although the media often refers to youth unemployment of 15 to 30 percent, it does not mention that in Libya, in contrast to other countries, all have their subsistence guaranteed. . . . The government provides all citizens with free health care and [has] achieved high coverage in the most basic health areas. . . . The life expectancy rose to 74.5 years and is now the highest in Africa. . . . The infant mortality rate declined to 17 deaths per 1,000 births and is not nearly as high as in Algeria (41) and also lower than in Saudi Arabia (21).

“The UNDP [United Nations Development Program] certified that Libya has also made ‘a significant progress in gender equality,’ particularly in the fields of education and health, while there is still much to do regarding representation in politics and the economy. With a relative low ‘index of gender inequality’ the UNDP places the country in the Human Development Report 2010 concerning gender equality at rank 52 and thus also well ahead of Egypt (ranked 108), Algeria (70), Tunisia (56), Saudi Arabia (ranked 128) and Qatar (94)” [3].

It is true that after resisting the self-centered demands and onerous pressures from Western powers for more than thirty years, Gaddafi relented in 1993 and opened the Libyan economy to Western capital, carried out a number of neoliberal economic reforms, and granted lucrative business/investment deals to major oil companies of the West.

But, again, like the proverbial godfather, US/European imperialism requires total, unconditional subordination; half-hearted, grudging compliance with the global agenda of imperialism is not enough. To be considered a real “ally,” or a true “client state,” a country has to grant the US the right to “guide” its economic, geopolitical and foreign policies, that is, to essentiallyforgo its national sovereignty. Despite some economic concessions since the early 1990s, Gaddafi failed this critical test of “full compliance” with the imperialist designs in the region.

For example, he resisted joining a US/NATO-sponsored military alliance in the region. Libya (along with Syria) are the only two Mediterranean nations and the sole remaining Arab states that are not subordinated to U.S. and NATO designs for control of the Mediterranean Sea Basin and the Middle East. Nor has Libya (or Syria) participated in NATO’s almost ten-year-old Operation Active Endeavor naval patrols and exercises in the Mediterranean Sea and neither is a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue military partnership which includes most regional countries: Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania [4].

To the chagrin of US imperialism, Libya’s Gaddafi also refused to join the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), designed to control valuable resources in Africa, safeguard trade and investment markets in the region, and contain or evict China from North Africa. “When the US formed AFRICOM in 2007, some 49 countries signed on to the US military charter for Africa but one country refused: Libya. Such a treacherous act by Libya’s leader Moummar Qaddafi would only sow the seeds for a future conflict down the road in 2011” [5].

Furthermore, by promoting trade, development and industrialization projects on a local, national, regional or African level, Gaddafi was viewed as an obstacle to the Western powers’ strategies of unhinderedtrade and development projects on a global level. For example, Gaddafi’s Libya played a leading role in “connecting the entire [African] continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas” [3].

The idea of launching a pan-African system of technologically advanced network of telecommunication began in the early 1990s, “when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country. . . . An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of $400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a $500 million annual lease” [3].

In pursuit of financing this project, the African nations frequently pleaded with the IMF and the World Bank for assistance. As the empty promises of these financial giants dragged on for 14 years,

“Gaddafi put an end to [the] futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put $300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further $27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.

“China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.

“This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere $300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of $500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent”[3].

Architects of global finance, represented by the imperialist governments of the West, also viewed Gaddafi as a spoiler in the area of international or global money and banking. The forces of global capital tend to prefer a uniform, contiguous, or borderless global market to multiple sovereign markets at the local, national, regional or continental levels.Not only Gaddafi’s Libya maintained public ownership of its own central bank, and the authority to create its own national money, but it also worked assiduously to establish an African Monetary Fund, an African Central Bank, and an African Investment Bank.

The $30 billion of the Libyan money frozen by the Obama administration belong to the Central Bank of Libya, which

“had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African Federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte(Libya), the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaoundé (Cameroon) . . ., and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria, which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc [the French currency] through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.

“The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only $25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatization like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17 December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations” [3].

Western powers also viewed Gaddafi as an obstacle to their imperial strategies for yet another reason: standing in the way of their age-old policies of “divide and rule.” To counter Gaddafi’s relentless efforts to establish a United States of Africa, the European Union tried to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM) region. “North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries, which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilized than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.” Gaddafi also refused to buy into other imperialist-inspired/driven groupings in Africa such as ECOWAS, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC and the Great Maghreb, “which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening” [3].

Gaddafi further earned the wrath of Western powers for striking extensive trade and investment deals with BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), especially with China. According to Beijing’s Ministry of Commerce, China’s contracts in Libya (prior to imperialism’s controlled demolition of that country) numbered no less than 50 large projects, involving contracts in excess of $18 billion. Even a cursory reading of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) strategic briefings shows that a major thrust of its mission is containment of China. “In effect, what we are witnessing here,” points out Patrick Henningsten, “is the dawn of a New Cold War between the US-EURO powers and China. This new cold war will feature many of the same elements of the long and protracted US-USSR face-off we saw in the second half of the 20th century. It will take place off shore, in places like Africa, South America, Central Asia and through old flashpoints like Korea and the Middle East” [5].

It is obvious (from this brief discussion) that Gaddafi’s sin for being placed on imperialism’s death row consists largely of the challenges he posed to the free reign of Western capital in the region, of his refusal to relinquish Libya’s national sovereignty to become another unconditional “client state” of Western powers. His removal from power is therefore designed to eliminate all “barriers” to the unhindered mobility of the US/European capital in the region by installing a more pliant regime in Libya.

Gaddafi’s removal from power would serve yet another objective of US/European powers: to shorten or spoil the Arab Spring by derailing their peaceful protests, containing their non-violent revolutions and sabotaging their aspirations for self-determination.Soon after being caught by surprise by the glorious uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, the imperialist powers (including the mini Zionist imperialism in Palestine) embarked on “damage control.” In pursuit of this objective, they adopted three simultaneous strategies. The first strategy was to half-heartedly “support” theuprisings in Egypt and Tunisia (of course, once they became unstoppable) in order to control them — hence, the military rule in those countries following the departure of Mubarak from Cairo and Ben Ali from Tunis. The second strategy of containment has been support and encouragement for the brutal crackdown of other spontaneous and peaceful uprisings in countries ruled by “client regimes,” for example, in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. And the third policy of sabotaging the Arab Spring has been to promote civil war and orchestrate chaos in countries such as Libya, Syria and Iran.

In its early stages of development, capitalism promoted nation-state and/or national sovereignty in order to free itself from the constraints of the church and feudalism. Now that the imperatives of the highly advanced but degenerate global finance capital require unhindered mobility in a uniform or borderless world, national sovereignty is considered problematic — especially in places like Libya, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia and other countries that are not ruled by imperialism’s “client states.” Why? Because unhindered global mobility of capital requiresdoing away with social safety net or welfare state programs; it means doing away with public domain properties or public sector enterprises and bringing them under the private ownership of the footloose-and-fancy-free global capital.

This explains why the corporate media, political pundits and other mouthpieces of imperialism are increasing talking about Western powers’ “responsibility to protect,” by which they mean that these powers have a responsibility to protect the Libyan (or Iranian or Venezuelan or Syrian or Cuban or …) citizens from their “dictatorial” rulers by instigating regime change and promoting “democracy” there. It further means that, in pursuit of this objective,the imperialist powers should not be bound by “constraints” of national sovereignty because, they argue, “universal democratic rights take primacy over national sovereignty considerations.” In a notoriously selective fashion, this utilitarian use of the “responsibility to protect” does not apply to nations or peoples ruled by imperialism’s client states such as Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. [6].

This also means that the imperialist war against peoples and states such as Libya and Venezuela is essentially part of the same class war against peoples and states in the belly of the beast, that is, in the United States and Europe. In every instance or place, whether at home or abroad, whether in Libya or California or Wisconsin or Greece, the thrust of the relentless global class war is the same: to do away with subsistence-level guarantees, or social safety net programs, and redistribute the national or global resources in favor of the rich and powerful, especially the powerful interests vested in the finance capital and the military capital.

There is no question that global capitalism has thus woven together the fates and fortunes of the overwhelming majority of the world population in an increasingly intensifying struggle for subsistence and survival. No one can tell when this majority of world population (the middle, lower-middle, poor and working classes) would come to the realization that their seemingly separate struggles for economic survival are essentially part and parcel of the same struggle against the same class enemies, the guardians of world capitalism. One thing is clear, however: only when they come to such a liberating realization, join forces together in a cross-border, global uprising against the forces of world capitalism, and seek to manage their economies independent of profitability imperatives of capitalist production — only then can they break free from the shackles of capitalism and control their future in a coordinated, people-centered mode of production, distribution and consumption.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh, author of The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007), teaches economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.

[Footnotes can be accessed at article’s webpage]

Article link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25317

Pentagon’s undercover operations in South America [Strategic Culture Foundation]

Posted in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, CIA, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Evo Morales, FARC, FBI, Fidel Castro, Guatemala, Hillary Clinton, Honduras, Hugo Chavez, Media smear campaign, Mexico, Obama, Panama, Pentagon, Peru, State Department, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, Venezuela, Wikileaks on February 26, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

by Nil Nikandrov

February 24, 2011

On February 10, the military aircraft of the Air Force of the United States, C-17 Globemaster III, registration 77187, landed at the Ezeiza international airport of the Argentine capital. From the Boeing’s bottomless carcasses [sic] the custom officers began to take out heavy boxes delivered from the base of the 7th Special Forces Group in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  A routine check went on quietly and in a friendly atmosphere. Weapons, ammunitions, night vision equipment and many other items were intended for training of the military students of Federal Special Operations Group (GEOF) by US instructors.

Suddenly one of the Argentine officers exclaimed: “There are undeclared boxes here!”  The check revealed that about one third of the cargos were not mentioned in the invoices. The military and defense attaches, Colonels Edwin Passmore and Mark Alcott tried to reach an “amicable settlement”.  Let’s not make a fuss about nothing! We are partners, we should trust each other!

But the thing is that a similar incident with considerable surplus of military cargo on board of an American military aircraft took place in the Ezeiza airport in August 2010.Then US Ambassador in Argentina Vilma Martinez resolved the conflict.  She admitted that the claims of custom officers were grounded and ordered an immediate return of the aircraft to North Carolina with the all the cargo onboard.  She said she was ashamed of such a behavior of the US military men.  In Argentina her words were taken as a reflection of a hidden fight between the Pentagon and the State Department for the right to determine the US’ policy in South America.   

Now – a suspicious repetition. Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández ordered to act strictly in compliance with the national law and to do everything to have the “valise” checked.  Americans were given time to think over the only possible decision.

Next day after intensive consultations with Pentagon and the State Department the US embassy had to bow to pressure. Argentineans opened the undeclared container.  Inside they found devices for secret communication, encryption and audio interception, GPS, software and a wide range of psychotropic and narcotic substances.  According to Argentinean experts, all these devices and materials were intended for intelligence and diversionary work. The opening of the “valise”, its contents as well as boxes with smuggled weapons (“the property of 7th Special Forces Group”) – all this was shown on the national TV.  In order to prevent the escalation of the conflict, the Argentinean authorities allowed the US Boeing to leave the country with the “legal part of cargo” and the instructors.

The history of the 7th Special Forces Groupwas written in blood.  The group was formed 18 months after the victory of Fidel Castro on Cuba. The group was put in charge of the Central and South America.  The “service record” of this group includes training of “death squads” for putting down the revolts in Honduras and Salvador, fighting drug cartels in Columbia, Bolivia and Peru.  The group members took part in the “Just Cause” operation in Panama (overthrowing of president Noriega), invasion to Grenada (liquidation of the socialist government). The group’s regular training missions in Argentina and other countries of South America can be regarded as a preparation for similar operations in the “zone of responsibility” in future.

Continue reading

DEA Will Not Be Allowed to Return to Bolivia [Prensa Latina]

Posted in Bolivia, DEA, Evo Morales, USA on February 2, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

La Paz, Jan 26 (Prensa Latina)

Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca categorically denied on Wednesday the possibility of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration returning to Bolivia.

Choquehuanca affirmed that since the DEA left Bolivia in 2008 by decision of President Evo Morales, positive results in the fight against drug trafficking have increased.

In 2010 Bolivia exceeded the results achieved between 2000 and 2005 in the anti-drug fight without neglecting human rights and unprecedented coordination with coca growers, according to the Ministry of Government.

Figures provided by this entity prove that the coordinated eradication of illegal crops exceeded 8,200 hectares in 2010, almost 2,000 more than in 2009.

Morales indefinitely expelled the DEA from Bolivia after accusing it of conspiracy against the government and economically supporting an attempted anti-government coup in 2008.

Article link here

Bolivian Separatist Plot Investigated [Prensa Latina]

Posted in Bolivia, Cuba, Evo Morales on January 29, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Havana, Jan 17 (Prensa Latina)

The Bolivian Attorney General”s Office has documentary evidence to carry on with inquiries concerning separatist conspiracies and assassination attempts in the country, Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said on Monday.

Garcia Linera, on a working visit to Cuba, told journalists that those inquiries constitute priority for his Government, led by President Evo Morales.

Some media organizations and internal opponents are trying to put in the foreground the alleged bribe by the Executive to a key witness in the case of terrorism under investigation, in the wake of release of a video showing an alleged pact with that person.

Asked about the issue, Garcia Linera explained that an investigation has been opened into the said video.  Justice must determine its origin and all related to the event, but this cannot affect ongoing inquiries on the separatist plot of which Bolivia has been a victim.

The plot, developed in 2008-2009, tried to divide the country and attempt [sic] on President Morales’ life.

Over twenty statements, including those by several mercenaries recruited abroad, as well as different documents in the hands of the Attorney General’s Office, confirm the magnitude of the conspiracy, said the vice president.

They were planning to trigger violent conflicts and attempt on the life of Evo Morales, said Garcia Linera, who described it as the first material attempt to divide Bolivia, unearthed by intelligence services and later verified by dozens of statements.

The vice president lauded the development achieved in the process of social change in his country during a press briefing at the end of his official opening speech, on the occasion of the 52nd Casa de las Americas Literary Prize.

Article link here

US Defence, Intelligence Bigwig Gates Hotfoots it Out of Defense Ministers Conference [Prensa Latina]

Posted in Bolivia, CIA, Ecuador, Evo Morales, Honduras, Hugo Chavez, Iran, Nicaragua, Panama, Pentagon, Rafael Correa, US imperialism, USA, Venezuela, Zelaya coup on December 3, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

La Paz, Nov 25 (Prensa Latina)

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates rushed out of the 9th Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas the same day it opened in the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz.

There were too many truths about which he did not dare to comment as he ran out, according to news reports on the event, which [ended] Thursday.

Once in Washington, the Pentagon chief said only that the U.S. embassy in La Paz “regretted” that Bolivia lost an opportunity to make progress on the forum’s key issues: peace and trust in the region, democracy, armed forces and society, regional security, and natural disasters.

But Gates, or rather what he represents, could not refute any of the convincing statements made by Bolivian President Morales in his opening remarks, when he presented evidence of how the White House is questioning and even trying to demonize and criminalize the different processes of political change taking place in Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Nicaragua.

Morales reminded the ex-CIA chief of the history of coups in the region, almost all of them organized by U.S. diplomats. In Bolivia, he noted, they began in 1964 with the case of Lt. Colonel Juan Villarrroel, the illustrious military leader who organized the first indigenous summit.

He also recalled that prior to the 2002 general elections, another former U.S. ambassador, Manuel Rocha, threatened to withdraw aid if voters chose Morales and described him as a terrorist.

As Gates blushed, and amid evasive looks, Morales said he was the victim of an attempted coup two years ago, promoted by the United States, the same country that tried to overthrow presidents Hugo Chavez in 2002 and Rafael Correa this year, actions that were successful only in Honduras in 2009, against President Manuel Zelaya.

That sore point, caused by Washington and which Gates could not avoid, was touched on by Morales when he referred to U.S. training and doctrine involving regional military institutions, and which encourage hatred of social movements and their leaders.

Those interfering, interventionist policies have not ended, and an example of that was the latest attacks by international right-wing extremist forces and U.S. congress members on the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, which took place on Nov. 17, again in the shade of the White House.

Gates, who has previously been linked to the Irangate scandal (1985) and the invasion of Panama (1989), made only one suggestion before leaving Bolivia: caution in the new ties with Tehran, a piece of advice harshly criticized by legislators and Morales.

Article link: http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=241312&Itemid=1