Nieuw bewijs VS betrokkenheid in staatsgreep Paraguay

[tomm]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...122519807.html

The prospect of Paraguay and Bolivia burying the hatchet over the Chaco and allying on politically leftist lines was hardly an agreeable prospect for Washington. As I've detailed elsewhere, both former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton viewed the Paraguayan left with suspicion. What seems to have scared them the most was the notion that Fernando Lugo might cultivate ties to nations such as Venezuela, which was allied with Evo Morales in Bolivia.

If it ever came to fruition, such an alliance could cast a dark cloud over sensitive US military operations. For years, US forces operated in Paraguay under the Southern Command to ostensibly provide rural medical care. However, some have suggested that the Americans were actually in Paraguay to spy on leftist movements or peasant leaders. Whatever the case, it seems that US troops were deployed to the remote Chaco region during their training missions.

Indeed, according to Argentine paper Clar�*n [Sp], US technicians constructed an air base in the Paraguayan Chaco town of Mariscal Estigarribia. In 2005, a correspondent from the paper visited the facility, describing the base as "an enormous aircraft carrier in the middle of the desert". Moreover, the air strip was very wide and could accommodate B-52 bombers, even though the Paraguayan air force didn't have any such planes in its arsenal.

In 2006, still two years prior to Lugo's assumption of power, diplomats reported that US forces were operating in the Chaco to "survey possible locations for future humanitarian assistance exercises". In truth, however, the State Department itself seems to have had little idea of what the Pentagon was actually up to in Paraguay (indeed, according to the Washington Office on Latin America, two members of a US Special Forces team operating undercover were involved in a deadly firefight in 2004. Tragically, the shootout resulted in the death of a Paraguayan who was attempting to rob the soldiers. Apparently, the Pentagon had kept the team's existence a total secret from the US embassy in Asunción).

Lugo's election, however, threw a wrench into US regional geostrategy. Though Paraguay's new president was no radical, he staked out an increasingly independent foreign policy and began to limit the Pentagon's role in his country. Even more worryingly, Lugo quickly indicated his desire to bury the hatchet with Bolivia and flew to La Paz to meet with Morales personally. In a rhetorical flourish, Lugo remarked that "the age of imperialism is over in this new age in Latin America" and that the future of Latin American relations with the United States would be "based on respect, equity, and justice".

If that were not enough to cause offence among the powers that be, Lugo also conducted a symbolic meeting with Morales in the rural Paraguayan Chaco town of Mariscal Estigarribia to commemorate the 74th anniversary of the end of the Chaco War. Both leaders signed a joint peace declaration and delivered speeches, with Lugo pronouncing that both South American nations had "learned that the integration of their peoples is more important than the legacy left by the blood of Bolivians and Paraguayans spilled on Chaco's oil".


Zoals overal in de wereld, van de Filippijnen over Irak tot Paraguay, blijken de VS de woorden vrijheid en democratie graag te bezigen, maar in de praktijk willen ze de controle behouden, en vooral geen eigengereide regeringen zien in landen die ze zien als hun bezit.

In Paraguay steunde de VS steeds het regime van Alfredo Stroesner, een wrede dictator die ze volk onderdrukte en arm hield, maar wel erg vriendelijk was voor Amerikaanse belangen (net als Ferdinand Marcos en zovele andere dictators in VS satteliet staten ) en ook nu nog steunen ze z'n nazaten van de colorado partij, zoals bleek volgens wikileaks. Ze konden het niet verkroppen dat een linkse president verkozen raakte bij eerlijke en vrije verkiezingen, en organiseerden, zoals zo vaak in Latijns-Amerika, een militaire coup.

Waar ze geen rekening mee hielden, is dat de tijden veranderd zijn, en grote delen van Latijns-amerika nu in handen zijn van linkse regeringen die meer dan genoeg hebben van "het rijk". En ook van het feit dat de bevolking mondiger is geworden en de staatsgreep weigert te aanvaarden. Ze hopen natuurlijk op een genocide zoals onder Stroesner om het gepeupel eronder te houden, maar dat wordt in de 21ste eeuw niet gemakkelijk, en al zeker niet met machtige, door links gergeerde, buren die gezworen hebben het militaire regime noot te zullen erkennen of aanvaarden.

Bovenal bewijst dit nog maals dat de VS in de verste verte niet geïnteresseerd zijn in democratie (enkel als dat kan gebruikt worden tegen regeringen die hen ongunstig gezind zijn).

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...122519807.html

The prospect of Paraguay and Bolivia burying the hatchet over the Chaco and allying on politically leftist lines was hardly an agreeable prospect for Washington. As I've detailed elsewhere, both former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton viewed the Paraguayan left with suspicion. What seems to have scared them the most was the notion that Fernando Lugo might cultivate ties to nations such as Venezuela, which was allied with Evo Morales in Bolivia.

If it ever came to fruition, such an alliance could cast a dark cloud over sensitive US military operations. For years, US forces operated in Paraguay under the Southern Command to ostensibly provide rural medical care. However, some have suggested that the Americans were actually in Paraguay to spy on leftist movements or peasant leaders. Whatever the case, it seems that US troops were deployed to the remote Chaco region during their training missions.

Indeed, according to Argentine paper Clar�*n [Sp], US technicians constructed an air base in the Paraguayan Chaco town of Mariscal Estigarribia. In 2005, a correspondent from the paper visited the facility, describing the base as "an enormous aircraft carrier in the middle of the desert". Moreover, the air strip was very wide and could accommodate B-52 bombers, even though the Paraguayan air force didn't have any such planes in its arsenal.

In 2006, still two years prior to Lugo's assumption of power, diplomats reported that US forces were operating in the Chaco to "survey possible locations for future humanitarian assistance exercises". In truth, however, the State Department itself seems to have had little idea of what the Pentagon was actually up to in Paraguay (indeed, according to the Washington Office on Latin America, two members of a US Special Forces team operating undercover were involved in a deadly firefight in 2004. Tragically, the shootout resulted in the death of a Paraguayan who was attempting to rob the soldiers. Apparently, the Pentagon had kept the team's existence a total secret from the US embassy in Asunción).

Lugo's election, however, threw a wrench into US regional geostrategy. Though Paraguay's new president was no radical, he staked out an increasingly independent foreign policy and began to limit the Pentagon's role in his country. Even more worryingly, Lugo quickly indicated his desire to bury the hatchet with Bolivia and flew to La Paz to meet with Morales personally. In a rhetorical flourish, Lugo remarked that "the age of imperialism is over in this new age in Latin America" and that the future of Latin American relations with the United States would be "based on respect, equity, and justice".

If that were not enough to cause offence among the powers that be, Lugo also conducted a symbolic meeting with Morales in the rural Paraguayan Chaco town of Mariscal Estigarribia to commemorate the 74th anniversary of the end of the Chaco War. Both leaders signed a joint peace declaration and delivered speeches, with Lugo pronouncing that both South American nations had "learned that the integration of their peoples is more important than the legacy left by the blood of Bolivians and Paraguayans spilled on Chaco's oil".


Zoals overal in de wereld, van de Filippijnen over Irak tot Paraguay, blijken de VS de woorden vrijheid en democratie graag te bezigen, maar in de praktijk willen ze de controle behouden, en vooral geen eigengereide regeringen zien in landen die ze zien als hun bezit.

In Paraguay steunde de VS steeds het regime van Alfredo Stroesner, een wrede dictator die ze volk onderdrukte en arm hield, maar wel erg vriendelijk was voor Amerikaanse belangen (net als Ferdinand Marcos en zovele andere dictators in VS satteliet staten ) en ook nu nog steunen ze z'n nazaten van de colorado partij, zoals bleek volgens wikileaks. Ze konden het niet verkroppen dat een linkse president verkozen raakte bij eerlijke en vrije verkiezingen, en organiseerden, zoals zo vaak in Latijns-Amerika, een militaire coup.

Waar ze geen rekening mee hielden, is dat de tijden veranderd zijn, en grote delen van Latijns-amerika nu in handen zijn van linkse regeringen die meer dan genoeg hebben van "het rijk". En ook van het feit dat de bevolking mondiger is geworden en de staatsgreep weigert te aanvaarden. Ze hopen natuurlijk op een genocide zoals onder Stroesner om het gepeupel eronder te houden, maar dat wordt in de 21ste eeuw niet gemakkelijk, en al zeker niet met machtige, door links gergeerde, buren die gezworen hebben het militaire regime noot te zullen erkennen of aanvaarden.

Bovenal bewijst dit nog maals dat de VS in de verste verte niet geïnteresseerd zijn in democratie (enkel als dat kan gebruikt worden tegen regeringen die hen ongunstig gezind zijn).

Lees de link in mij handtekening

[Dixie]

wat een dwaze leugens alweer ... wat moet de haat weer hoog zijn

[Zwitser]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

In Paraguay steunde de VS steeds het regime van Alfredo Stroesner, een wrede dictator die ze volk onderdrukte en arm hield, maar wel erg vriendelijk was voor Amerikaanse belangen (net als Ferdinand Marcos en zovele andere dictators in VS satteliet staten )

Sinds wanneer heb jij een probleem met dictators

[roger verhiest]

"Democratie" lijkt op het eerste zicht een eenvoudige zaak : de regering van en voor het volk uitgevoerd door de meerderheid/diegenen die door een meerderheid verkozen zijn.

indien men nagaat hoe deze op het eerste zicht eenvoudige defintie uitgevoerd wordt in de praktijk merk je vlug dat er druk "geïnterpreteerd" wordt om de traditie, een groep "rijkeren" of een bepaalde religieuze, doctrinaire opvatting over de maatschappij aan de macht te houden.

Verdedigers van "de democratie" die verzwijgen wat ze eigenlijk bedoelen zijn ten allen tijde te wantrouwen.

[Kasumi]

De zoveelste coup van de VS. Het land dat zich grootschalig verzet tegen democratie.

[-Jo-]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Kasumi

De zoveelste coup van de VS. Het land dat zich grootschalig verzet tegen democratie.

²

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Zwitser

Sinds wanneer heb jij een probleem met dictators

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Zwitser

Sinds wanneer heb jij een probleem met dictators

[zonbron]

Bedankt voor de uiterst interessante bijdrage @tomm.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Kasumi

De zoveelste coup van de VS. Het land dat zich grootschalig verzet tegen democratie.

3! dus.

[tomm]

Een korte beschrijving van Alfredo Stroessner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Stroessner

Soon after taking office, Stroessner declared a state of siege, which allowed him to suspend civil liberties and rule by decree. It was renewed every 90 days until 1987. Although the state of siege was technically restricted to the capital after 1970, the courts ruled that anyone charged with security offenses could be brought to the capital and indicted under the state-of-siege provisions. Thus, for all intents and purposes, Stroessner ruled under what amounted to martial law for virtually his entire tenure. A devoted anti-communist, he justified this action as a necessary tool to protect the country.

The Stroessner regime enjoyed close military and economic ties with the United States and supported the US invasion of Dominican Republic[2] and even offered to send troops to support the U.S. in Vietnam.[3] Strong Paraguayan-U.S. relations continued until the Carter Administration emphasized a foreign policy that recognized human rights abuses. Between 1962 and 1975 the United States provided $146 million to Paraguay's military government and Paraguayan officers were trained at the US Army School of the Americas.[4] Between 1962 and 1966, nearly 400 Paraguayan military personnel were trained by the United States in the Panama Canal Zone and on US soil.[6]

While Stroessner's rule saw more stability than any living Paraguayan had ever known, it came at a high cost; corruption was rampant (Stroessner himself did not dispute charges of corruption at some levels in his government) and the Stroessner government's human rights record was considered one of the poorest in South America.[7] During Stroessner's regime, an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 people were murdered, and 400 to 500 more were "disappeared."[8]

Paraguay was a leading participant in Operation Condor, a campaign of state-terror and security operations which were jointly conducted by the right-wing military governments of six Latin American countries (Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil). Human rights violations characteristic of those in other Latin American countries such as kidnapping, torture, forced disappearance and extrajudicial killing, were routine and systematic during the Stroessner regime. Following executions, many of the bodies of those killed by the regime were dumped in the Chaco or the Rio Paraguay. The discovery of the "terror archives" in 1992 in the Lambaré suburb of Asunción, confirmed allegations of widespread human rights violations.

Pastor Coronel was the chief of the pyragüés (hairy-footed in Guaran�*) or secret police. He would interview people in a pileta, a bath of human excrement or ram electric cattle prods up their rectums. The Secretary of the Paraguayan Communist Party was dismembered alive with a chainsaw while Stroessner listened on the phone.[9]

Under Stroessner, egregious human rights violations were committed against the Ache Indian population of Paraguay's east-coast. The Ache Indians resided on land that was coveted by foreign multinationals and had resisted relocation attempts by the Paraguayan army. The government retaliated with massacres and forced many Ache into slavery. In 1974 the UN accused Paraguay of slavery and genocide.[10]
It is assumed that the Roman Catholic Church is the only reason Stroessner did not have absolute control over the country.[13] After the destruction of Asunción University in 1972 by police, the Archbishop of Paraguay Ismael Rolón Silvero excommunicated the minister of the interior and the chief of police, and proscribed the celebration of Holy Mass in a sign of protest against the Stroessner regime. When Pope John Paul II visited Paraguay in 1988, his visit bolstered what was already a robust anti-Stroessner movement within the country.[14]

Een man naar het hart van de VS dus, zowel bijna letterlijk als figuurlijk een communistenfreter (de secretaris-generaal van de communistische partij werd levend uiteengereten terwijl aan de telefoon Stroessner zat mee te genieten.) Zelfs voor het Vatikaan maakte hij het te bond (veel priesters die het opnamen voor de armen werden eveneens doodgemarteld of verdwenen), maar niet voor de VS.


Het was dus wel even schrikken toen een linkse priester aan de macht kwam 2 jaar geleden, en die dan ook nog relaties met de VS wilde op basis van wederzijds respect en gelijkheid, en goede relaties had met Chavez en Morales. (extra vervelend voor de VS daar ze altijd erg profiteerden van de vijandschap tussen Bolivië en Paraguay, hoewel beide door westerse oliemaatschappijen gecontroleerd werden, dat komt onder andere al aan bod in een van de albums van Kuifje) Dat was teveel voor Corneel, en een militaire door de VS voorbereide coup moest een eind maken aan die zottigheden..




Goede vriend van de VS, Zuid-Afrika, Tatcher, Pinochet en multinationals, specialisatie: genocide tegen de Indianen, politieke moorden, corruptie, martelingencentra, met veel ervaring in deze sectoren.

[tomm]

Een andere zeer goede vriend van Reagan en Israel: dictator Rios Montt van Guatemala, specialisatie: genocide tegen de indianenbevolking, doodseskaders, dood van ongeveer 200000 burgers in een land waar amper enkele miljoenen mensen wonen.

Over de Rode Khmer zijn boeken vol geschreven (hoewel ze nooit rechtstreeks steun kregen van de Sovjet-Unie, en door communistisch Vietnam van de macht verdreven werden, worden ze toch altijd gebruikt om het communisme zwart te maken) over deze genocidair is amper iets buiten Latijns-Amerika bekend.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efra%C3...%C3%ADos_Montt

R�*os Montt is best known outside Guatemala for heading a military regime (1982–1983) that was responsible for having defeated the guerrillas through the "guns and beans" campaign, maintaining "If you are with us, we’ll feed you, if not, we’ll kill you"[1]. At least 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it one of Latin America's most violent wars in modern history.



Two Truth Commissions, the REMHI report, sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church, and the CEH report, conducted by the United Nations as part of the 1996 Accords of Firm and Durable Peace, documented widespread human rights abuses committed by R�*os Montt's military regime, including widespread massacres, rape, torture, and acts of genocide against the indigenous population.


Given R�*os Montt's staunch anticommunism and ties to the United States, the Reagan administration continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit to Guatemala City in December 1982.[12] During a meeting with R�*os Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President R�*os Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."1[13]

President Ronald Reagan claimed Guatemala's human rights conditions were improving and used this to justify several major shipments of military hardware to Rios Montt; $4 million in helicopter spare parts and $6.3 million in additional military supplies in 1982 and 1983 respectively. The decision was taken in spite of records concerning human rights violations, by-passing the approval from Congress.[14][15][16][17][18] Meanwhile, a then-secret 1983 CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" and an increasing number of bodies "appearing in ditches and gullies."[19] In turn, Guatemala was eager to resurrect the Central American Defense Council, defunct since 1969, to join forces with the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Honduras in retaliations against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Like Guatemala's other suppliers of arms, Israel (which had been supplying arms to Guatemala since 1974) continued its aid provisions. The cooperation didn't just involve material support, but also included providing intelligence and operational training, carried out both in Israel and in Guatemala. In 1982, R�*os Montt told ABC News that his success was due to the fact that "our soldiers were trained by Israelis." There was not much outcry in Israel at the time about its involvement in Guatemala, though the support for R�*os Montt was no secret. The Israeli link was not lost on the average Guatemalan: At a cemetery in Chichicastenango, relatives of a man killed by the military told Perera, "In church they tell us that divine justice is on the side of the poor; but the fact of the matter is, it is the military who get the Israeli guns."[20]

Indigenous Mayans suffered greatly under his rule, and it is documented that his government deliberately targeted thousands of them since many of them in the countryside were suspected of harboring sympathies for the guerrilla movement. The UN-backed official Historical Clarification Commission found that this was a campaign of deliberate genocide against the population.[2][3]

In 1982, an Amnesty International report estimated that over 10,000 indigenous Guatemalans and peasant farmers were killed from March to July of that year, and that 100,000 rural villagers were forced to flee their homes. According to more recent estimates, tens of thousands of non-combatants were killed by the regime's death squads in the subsequent eighteen months. At the height of the bloodshed under R�*os Montt, reports put the number of killings and disappearances at more than 3,000 per month.[11] Based on the number of people killed per capita, R�*os Montt was probably the most violent dictator in Latin America's recent history, more so than even other notorious dictators such as Chile's Augusto Pinochet, Argentina's Jorge Rafael Videla, and Bolivia's Hugo Banzer.[citation needed]

Because of repeated vote-rigging and the blatant corruption of the military establishment, the coup was initially welcomed. Initially, there was some expectation that the extremely poor human rights and security situation might improve under the new regime.[10] Drawing on his Pentecostal beliefs, R�*os Montt invoked a modern apocalyptic vision comparing the four riders of the Book of Revelation to the four modern evils of hunger, misery, ignorance and subversion, as well as fighting corruption and what he described as the depredations of the rich. He said that the true Christian had the Bible in one hand and a machine gun in the other. On April 10, he launched the National Growth and Security Plan whose stated goals were to end the extermination and teach the populace about nationalism. They wanted to integrate the campesinos and indigenous peoples into the state, declaring that because of their illiteracy and "immaturity" they were particularly vulnerable to the seductions of "international communism."[citation needed]


hier met zijn goede vriend Reagan.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Zwitser

Sinds wanneer heb jij een probleem met dictators

Ik heb een probleem met dictators die onschuldige burgers uitmoorden.
Maar ik herhaal niet constant dat democratie, vrijheid en persvrijheid mijn basiswaarden zijn. Mijn basiswaarden zijn sociale gerechtigheid, socio-economische ontwikkeling en een aanvaardbare levensstandaard voor de hele bevolking en een zo klein mogelijk klasseverschil.

Een ding is duidelijk, de VS hebben GEEN probleem met bloedige en genocidaire dictators, ondanks het feit dat ze hun buitenlandse politiek in naam van vrijheid en democratie voeren en voerden (althans volgens hun eigen rethoriek).

Ze hebben pas een probleem met dictators (of met democratisch verkozen leiders) als die tegen de belangen van de VS ingaan.

[-Jo-]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Ik heb een probleem met dictators die onschuldige burgers uitmoorden.
Maar ik herhaal niet constant dat democratie, vrijheid en persvrijheid mijn basiswaarden zijn. Mijn basiswaarden zijn sociale gerechtigheid, socio-economische ontwikkeling en een aanvaardbare levensstandaard voor de hele bevolking en een zo klein mogelijk klasseverschil.

Kijk eens aan, kan ik me helemaal in vinden!

Een ding is duidelijk, de VS hebben GEEN probleem met bloedige en genocidaire dictators, ondanks het feit dat ze hun buitenlandse politiek in naam van vrijheid en democratie voeren en voerden (althans volgens hun eigen rethoriek).

Ze hebben pas een probleem met dictators (of met democratisch verkozen leiders) als die tegen de belangen van de VS ingaan.

²