Like most, I'm sick of "bittergate" and facial tics. I'd like to see the media talk about real issues in the primaries. And my strong instinct is that if that happened, these primaries would be soon over. So I'm asking for a bit of help. I've started by investigating one story--the sad history of Clinton interference in Latin America. If this were news, I don't think that Senator Clinton could hold any majority of Hispanic voters. But to make it news, we have to find video and push the story across the web.
For at least 100 years, the United States has treated the countries of Latin America as unofficial colonies, supporting dictators and using smoke and mirrors to control their economies. This was a big problem during the Clinton years. Do most Hispanics know that...
Let's start with a story of a little-known war in 1995:
Chevron acquired rights to nearly 2 million hectares of previously unexplored land adjacent to the huge Shell/Mobil Camisea field in the central jungle...Following the at least temporary cessation of hostilities in the Peru-Ecuador border conflict, a chorus of calls have gone out in Lima for the "Peruvianization" of the contested area.
Problem? The land belonged to Ecuador, and the Clinton administration sent CIA "advisors" in to help the oil companies and the Peruvians nudge the border a bit, fighting indigenous environmental activists along the way.
This is a continuation of a decades-long history of economic and political domination that the U.S. has conducted since the 1950s, and which was fully evident during the Clinton administration. Plan Colombia continued without a hiccup as the administration changed from Clinton to Bush in 2001.
Begun in 2000, Plan Colombia was ostensibly designed to take the "war on drugs" to the drug producers...However, the US has other motives. While most of the country has not been explored for oil, Colombia is already the third-largest exporter in Latin America, after Venezuela and Mexico. Colombia sits on the Venezuela-Orinoco belt, the planet's largest accumulation of hydro-carbons, which it shares with Venezuela and Ecuador. However, the latter two countries, like most of South America, are part of a left-wing revolt against Washington’s neoliberal policies.
Plan Colombia was invented by the Clinton administration to grab Latin American oil, not to fight drugs. Even the terms of the original Clinton plan were patently ridiculous, obviously intended to provide a smoke screen for Congressional approval. From the same source:
The initial draft of Plan Colombia called for $1.3 billion from the US and $4 billion from the Colombian government, then in recession[emphasis my own]...In April 2001, when US President George Bush established the Andean Regional Initiative (ARI), a $1.1 billion regional expansion of Plan Colombia into Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil and Panama, 54% of the funds were spent on military aid...With US training, two-thirds of the Colombian army are now involved in protecting the oil-rich sectors of the country.
Deja vu? Like the post-invasion protection of Iraq?
This isn't the only example of "economic dominionism" in Latin America the Clinton administration. From The Secret History of the American Empire by John Perkins:
And Colombia:
Colombia...has maintained its position as Washington's surrogate. Shored up by massive U.S. taxpayer assistance and armies of corporate-sponsoredmercenaries, as well as formal U.S. military support, ithas become the keystone in Washington's attempt to regain regional domination. Although official justification for U.S. involvement centers on drug wars, this is a subterfuge for protecting oil interests against grassroots opposition to foreign exploitation.
Yes, that's the same Colombia where Uribe gave Bill Clinton a major award and he was paid ~$800,000 for speaking engagements...the same Colombia represented by Mark Penn. And yet, not a single question about interference in Latin American politics in the last debate.
Meanwhile, at least six Latin American countries have elected anti-American administrations since the Clinton years.
Is it fair for Senator Clinton to be painted with her husband's brush? I'd ask the opposite question: Can she show that she opposed it? It's actually a more difficult question than it seems, since she never had a security clearance as first lady. But she can't argue both ways.
Just a beginning. How does the media (especially Hispanic media) get the message that this is an issue?