Why there Were no CIA Torture Black Sites in Latin America (Grandin)

Greg Grandin writes at Tomdispatch.com:

The map tells the story.  To illustrate a damning new report, “Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detentions and Extraordinary Rendition,” recently published by the Open Society Institute, the Washington Post put together an equally damning graphic: it’s soaked in red, as if with blood, showing that in the years after 9/11, the CIA turned just about the whole world into a gulag archipelago.

Back in the early twentieth century, a similar red-hued map was used to indicate the global reach of the British Empire, on which, it was said, the sun never set.  It seems that, between 9/11 and the day George W. Bush left the White House, CIA-brokered torture never saw a sunset either.

All told, of the 190-odd countries on this planet, a staggering 54 participated in various ways in this American torture system, hosting CIA “black site” prisons, allowing their airspace and airports to be used for secret flights, providing intelligence, kidnapping foreign nationals or their own citizens and handing them over to U.S. agents to be “rendered” to third-party countries like Egypt and Syria.  The hallmark of this network, Open Society writes, has been torture.  Its report documents the names of 136 individuals swept up in what it says is an ongoing operation, though its authors make clear that the total number, implicitly far higher, “will remain unknown” because of the “extraordinary level of government secrecy associated with secret detention and extraordinary rendition.”

No region escapes the stain.  Not North America, home to the global gulag’s command center.  Not Europe, the Middle East, Africa, or Asia.  Not even social-democratic Scandinavia.  Sweden turned over at least two people to the CIA, who were then rendered to Egypt, where they were subject to electric shocks, among other abuses.  No region, that is, except Latin America.

What’s most striking about the Post’s map is that no part of its wine-dark horror touches Latin America; that is, not one country in what used to be called Washington’s “backyard” participated in rendition or Washington-directed or supported torture and abuse of “terror suspects.”  Not even Colombia, which throughout the last two decades was as close to a U.S.-client state as existed in the area.  It’s true that a fleck of red should show up on Cuba, but that would only underscore the point: Teddy Roosevelt took Guantánamo Bay Naval Base for the U.S. in 1903 “in perpetuity.”

Two, Three, Many CIAs 

How did Latin America come to be territorio libre in this new dystopian world of black sites and midnight flights, the Zion of this militarist matrix (as fans of the Wachowskis’ movies might put it)?  After all, it was in Latin America that an earlier generation of U.S. and U.S.-backed counterinsurgents put into place a prototype of Washington’s twenty-first century Global War on Terror.

Even before the 1959 Cuban Revolution, before Che Guevara urged revolutionaries to create “two, three, many Vietnams,” Washington had already set about establishing two, three, many centralized intelligence agencies in Latin America.  As Michael McClintock shows in his indispensable book Instruments of Statecraft, in late 1954, a few months after the CIA’s infamous coup in Guatemala that overthrew a democratically elected government, the National Security Council first recommended strengthening “the internal security forces of friendly foreign countries.”

In the region, this meant three things.  First, CIA agents and other U.S. officials set to work “professionalizing” the security forces of individual countries like Guatemala, Colombia, and Uruguay; that is, turning brutal but often clumsy and corrupt local intelligence apparatuses into efficient, “centralized,” still brutal agencies, capable of gathering information, analyzing it, and storing it.  Most importantly, they were to coordinate different branches of each country’s security forces — the police, military, and paramilitary squads — to act on that information, often lethally and always ruthlessly.

Second, the U.S. greatly expanded the writ of these far more efficient and effective agencies, making it clear that their portfolio included not just national defense but international offense.  They were to be the vanguard of a global war for “freedom” and of an anticommunist reign of terror in the hemisphere.  Third, our men in Montevideo, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Asunción, La Paz, Lima, Quito, San Salvador, Guatemala City, and Managua were to help synchronize the workings of individual national security forces.

The result was state terror on a nearly continent-wide scale.  In the 1970s and 1980s, Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet’s Operation Condor, which linked together the intelligence services of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile, was the most infamous of Latin America’s transnational terror consortiums, reaching out to commit mayhem as far away as Washington D.C., Paris, and Rome.  The U.S. had earlier helped put in place similar operations elsewhere in the Southern hemisphere, especially in Central America in the 1960s.

By the time the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans had been tortured, killed, disappeared, or imprisoned without trial, thanks in significant part to U.S. organizational skills and support.  Latin America was, by then, Washington’s backyard gulag.  Three of the region’s current presidents — Uruguay’s José Mujica, Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff, and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega — were victims of this reign of terror.

When the Cold War ended, human rights groups began the herculean task of dismantling the deeply embedded, continent-wide network of intelligence operatives, secret prisons, and torture techniques — and of pushing militaries throughout the region out of governments and back into their barracks.  In the 1990s, Washington not only didn’t stand in the way of this process, but actually lent a hand in depoliticizing Latin America’s armed forces.  Many believed that, with the Soviet Union dispatched, Washington could now project its power in its own “backyard” through softer means like international trade agreements and other forms of economic leverage.  Then 9/11 happened.

“Oh My Goodness”

In late November 2002, just as the basic outlines of the CIA’s secret detention and extraordinary rendition programs were coming into shape elsewhere in the world, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld flew 5,000 miles to Santiago, Chile, to attend a hemispheric meeting of defense ministers.  “Needless to say,” Rumsfeld nonetheless said, “I would not be going all this distance if I did not think this was extremely important.” Indeed.

This was after the invasion of Afghanistan but before the invasion of Iraq and Rumsfeld was riding high, as well as dropping the phrase “September 11th” every chance he got.  Maybe he didn’t know of the special significance that date had in Latin America, but 29 years earlier on the first 9/11, a CIA-backed coup by General Pinochet and his military led to the death of Chile’s democratically elected president Salvador Allende.  Or did he, in fact, know just what it meant and was that the point?  After all, a new global fight for freedom, a proclaimed Global War on Terror, was underway and Rumsfeld had arrived to round up recruits.

There, in Santiago, the city out of which Pinochet had run Operation Condor, Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials tried to sell what they were now terming the “integration” of “various specialized capabilities into larger regional capabilities” — an insipid way of describing the kidnapping, torturing, and death-dealing already underway elsewhere. “Events around the world before and after September 11th suggest the advantages,” Rumsfeld said, of nations working together to confront the terror threat.

“Oh my goodness,” Rumsfeld told a Chilean reporter, “the kinds of threats we face are global.”  Latin America was at peace, he admitted, but he had a warning for its leaders: they shouldn’t lull themselves into believing that the continent was safe from the clouds gathering elsewhere.  Dangers exist, “old threats, such as drugs, organized crime, illegal arms trafficking, hostage taking, piracy, and money laundering; new threats, such as cyber-crime; and unknown threats, which can emerge without warning.”

“These new threats,” he added ominously, “must be countered with new capabilities.” Thanks to the Open Society report, we can see exactly what Rumsfeld meant by those “new capabilities.”

A few weeks prior to Rumsfeld’s arrival in Santiago, for example, the U.S., acting on false information supplied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, detained Maher Arar, who holds dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship, at New York’s John F. Kennedy airport and then handed him over to a “Special Removal Unit.” He was flown first to Jordan, where he was beaten, and then to Syria, a country in a time zone five hours ahead of Chile, where he was turned over to local torturers.  On November 18th, when Rumsfeld was giving his noon speech in Santiago, it was five in the afternoon in Arar’s “grave-like” cell in a Syrian prison, where he would spend the next year being abused. 

Ghairat Baheer was captured in Pakistan about three weeks before Rumsfeld’s Chile trip, and thrown into a CIA-run prison in Afghanistan called the Salt Pit.  As the secretary of defense praised Latin America’s return to the rule of law after the dark days of the Cold War, Baheer may well have been in the middle of one of his torture sessions, “hung naked for hours on end.”

Taken a month before Rumsfeld’s visit to Santiago, the Saudi national Abd al Rahim al Nashiri was transported to the Salt Pit, after which he was transferred “to another black site in Bangkok, Thailand, where he was waterboarded.” After that, he was passed on to Poland, Morocco, Guantánamo, Romania, and back to Guantánamo, where he remains.  Along the way, he was subjected to a “mock execution with a power drill as he stood naked and hooded,” had U.S. interrogators rack a “semi-automatic handgun close to his head as he sat shackled before them.”  His interrogators also “threatened to bring in his mother and sexually abuse her in front of him.”

Likewise a month before the Santiago meeting, the Yemini Bashi Nasir Ali Al Marwalah was flown to Camp X-Ray in Cuba, where he remains to this day.   

Less than two weeks after Rumsfeld swore that the U.S. and Latin America shared “common values,” Mullah Habibullah, an Afghan national, died “after severe mistreatment” in CIA custody at something called the “Bagram Collection Point.” A U.S. military investigation “concluded that the use of stress positions and sleep deprivation combined with other mistreatment… caused, or were direct contributing factors in, his death.”

Two days after the secretary’s Santiago speech, a CIA case officer in the Salt Pit had Gul Rahma stripped naked and chained to a concrete floor without blankets.  Rahma froze to death.     

And so the Open Society report goes… on and on and on.

Territorio Libre 

Rumsfeld left Santiago without firm commitments.  Some of the region’s militaries were tempted by the supposed opportunities offered by the secretary’s vision of fusing crime fighting into an ideological campaign against radical Islam, a unified war in which all was to be subordinated to U.S. command.  As political scientist Brian Loveman has noted, around the time of Rumsfeld’s Santiago visit, the head of the Argentine army picked up Washington’s latest set of themes, insisting that “defense must be treated as an integral matter,” without a false divide separating internal and external security.

But history was not on Rumsfeld’s side.  His trip to Santiago coincided with Argentina’s epic financial meltdown, among the worst in recorded history.  It signaled a broader collapse of the economic model — think of it as Reaganism on steroids — that Washington had been promoting in Latin America since the late Cold War years.  Soon, a new generation of leftists would be in power across much of the continent, committed to the idea of national sovereignty and limiting Washington’s influence in the region in a way that their predecessors hadn’t been. 

Hugo Chávez was already president of Venezuela.  Just a month before Rumsfeld’s Santiago trip, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won the presidency of Brazil. A few months later, in early 2003, Argentines elected Néstor Kirchner, who shortly thereafter ended his country’s joint military exercises with the U.S.  In the years that followed, the U.S. experienced one setback after another.  In 2008, for instance, Ecuador evicted the U.S. military from Manta Air Base.  

In that same period, the Bush administration’s rush to invade Iraq, an act most Latin American countries opposed, helped squander whatever was left of the post-9/11 goodwill the U.S. had in the region.  Iraq seemed to confirm the worst suspicions of the continent’s new leaders: that what Rumsfeld was trying to peddle as an international “peacekeeping” force would be little more than a bid to use Latin American soldiers as Gurkhas in a revived unilateral imperial war. 

Brazil’s “Smokescreen”

Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show the degree to which Brazil rebuffed efforts to paint the region red on Washington’s new global gulag map.

A May 2005 U.S. State Department cable, for instance, reveals that Lula’s government refused “multiple requests” by Washington to take in released Guantánamo prisoners, particularly a group of about 15 Uighurs the U.S. had been holding since 2002, who could not be sent back to China.

“[Brazil’s] position regarding this issue has not changed since 2003 and will likely not change in the foreseeable future,” the cable said.  It went on to report that Lula’s government considered the whole system Washington had set up at Guantánamo (and around the world) to be a mockery of international law.  “All attempts to discuss this issue” with Brazilian officials, the cable concluded, “were flatly refused or accepted begrudgingly.”

In addition, Brazil refused to cooperate with the Bush administration’s efforts to create a Western Hemisphere-wide version of the Patriot Act.  It stonewalled, for example, about agreeing to revise its legal code in a way that would lower the standard of evidence needed to prove conspiracy, while widening the definition of what criminal conspiracy entailed.

Lula stalled for years on the initiative, but it seems that the State Department didn’t realize he was doing so until April 2008, when one of its diplomats wrote a memo calling Brazil’s supposed interest in reforming its legal code to suit Washington a “smokescreen.”  The Brazilian government, another Wikileaked cable complained, was afraid that a more expansive definition of terrorism would be used to target “members of what they consider to be legitimate social movements fighting for a more just society.” Apparently, there was no way to “write an anti-terrorism legislation that excludes the actions” of Lula’s left-wing social base.

One U.S. diplomat complained that this “mindset” — that is, a mindset that actually valued civil liberties  — “presents serious challenges to our efforts to enhance counterterrorism cooperation or promote passage of anti-terrorism legislation.”  In addition, the Brazilian government worried that the legislation would be used to go after Arab-Brazilians, of which there are many.  One can imagine that if Brazil and the rest of Latin America had signed up to participate in Washington’s rendition program, Open Society would have a lot more Middle Eastern-sounding names to add to its list. 

Finally, cable after Wikileaked cable revealed that Brazil repeatedly brushed off efforts by Washington to isolate Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, which would have been a necessary step if the U.S. was going to marshal South America into its counterterrorism posse. 

In February 2008, for example, U.S. ambassador to Brazil Clifford Sobell met with Lula’s Minister of Defense Nelson Jobin to complain about Chávez.  Jobim told Sobell that Brazil shared his “concern about the possibility of Venezuela exporting instability.”  But instead of “isolating Venezuela,” which might only “lead to further posturing,” Jobim instead indicated that his government “supports [the] creation of a ‘South American Defense Council’ to bring Chavez into the mainstream.”

There was only one catch here: that South American Defense Council was Chávez’s idea in the first place!  It was part of his effort, in partnership with Lula, to create independent institutions parallel to those controlled by Washington.  The memo concluded with the U.S. ambassador noting how curious it was that Brazil would use Chavez’s “idea for defense cooperation” as part of a “supposed containment strategy” of Chávez. 

Monkey-Wrenching the Perfect Machine of Perpetual War

Unable to put in place its post-9/11 counterterrorism framework in all of Latin America, the Bush administration retrenched.  It attempted instead to build a “perfect machine of perpetual war” in a corridor running from Colombia through Central America to Mexico.  The process of militarizing that more limited region, often under the guise of fighting “the drug wars,” has, if anything, escalated in the Obama years.  Central America has, in fact, become the only place Southcom — the Pentagon command that covers Central and South America — can operate more or less at will.  A look at this other map, put together by the Fellowship of Reconciliation, makes the region look like one big landing strip for U.S. drones and drug-interdiction flights. 

Washington does continue to push and probe further south, trying yet again to establish a firmer military foothold in the region and rope it into what is now a less ideological and more technocratic crusade, but one still global in its aspirations.  U.S. military strategists, for instance, would very much like to have an airstrip in French Guyana or the part of Brazil that bulges out into the Atlantic.  The Pentagon would use it as a stepping stone to its increasing presence in Africa, coordinating the work of Southcom with the newest global command, Africom.   

But for now, South America has thrown a monkey wrench into the machine.  Returning to that Washington Post map, it’s worth memorializing the simple fact that, in one part of the world, in this century at least, the sun never rose on US-choreographed torture. 

Greg Grandin is a TomDispatch regular and the author of Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford’s Lost Jungle City, a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize.  Later this year, his new book, Empire of Necessity: Slavery, Freedom, and Deception in the New World, will be published by Metropolitan Books.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch book, Nick Turse’s The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare.

Copyright 2013 Greg Grandin

Mirrored from Tomdispatch.com

Posted in al-Qaeda,Bush,CIA | 12 Responses | Print |

12 Responses

  1. Let’s recall that Operation Condor was itself part of a terrorist coalition of European fascists, neo-Nazis, and just plain Nazis that subverted democratic governments from S. America to Europe. In Italy they bombed the Italicus train and Bologna train station, among many, many other places, while in Bolivia they tortured and murdered as death squads operating in the Klaus Barbie “Cocaine Coup” and were closely tied to the generals in Argentina. This arc of violence was connected to the Odessa Nazi Otto Skorzeny, out of Franco’s Spain, and generally revolved around the “Aginter Press Agency” front in Lisbon, run by French OAS members. This cluster of Euro-nazis also worked for Pinochet and was in contact with the CIA in Bolivia through agent William Adgar Moffet III. The same people turn up in connection with Orlando Bosch, the unrepentent mass murderer who killed 73 civilians in the Cubana Air bombing (pardoned by Bush I).

    The point being that: a) such actions have been financed, overseen, co-ordinated, and collaberated with by the US not just in Chile but as part of a global postwar strategy, and the tactical shift to kidnapping/rendition is just a different way to impede democracy in most of the world; b) there is nothing new about “terrorism” at all, and throughout the 70s and much of the 80s there was terrorism all over the place (including diplomats murdered in the US) and the right wing didn’t dare to destroy the 4th amendment or habeas corpus. Conclusion: we are seeing, in the US, a historical phase of legitimation of the Argentina/Guatamala/Chile/etc. style of rule-by-terror.

    Also, most of these Guantanamo-type torture methods are based on the Soviet model (denial of sleep being central) and that model was meant to procure false confessions, not real information, making Bigelow’s propaganda movie even more sinister in its attempt to create a narrative of effective torture. Sadly, the most likely senario is that most of the torturers are simply US-funded sadists, deployed by office-dwelling Eichmanns who fetishize “toughness.”

    • What’s that hissing sound I hear? A couple of apologists taking in deep breaths, ready to scare-quote and italicize a line or two in the hope of impeaching the whole ugly picture?

      …in 3, 2, 1…

    • Good points.

      Klaus Barbie from the 1960s was on the payroll of German intelligence and had a close relationship with Bolivia’s top government leadership. There were reports that he was a consultant to the CIA-linked Bolivian operatives who captured Che Guevara and executed him. Barbie was later extradited back to France in 1983 for war crimes prosecution.

      Otto Skorzeny was a top aide to Juan Peron and eventually was a mentor to Muammar Khadafy after his coup in 1969 in organizing the internal security apparatus of Libya – he also trained Fatah leaders in paramilitary operations. Skorzeny had been a commando leader in the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany.

      The late Dr. Orlando Bosch was president of the University of Havana medical student government when Fidel Castro was president of the law student body. He later played a key paramilitary role in Miami-based anti-Castro exile groups that were supervised by the CIA’s JM/WAVE station as part of Operation Mongoose. Bosch was never convicted in the Cubana Air bombing but did receive a pardon from parole violation proceedings arising from his conviction in a 1967 bazooka attack of a Polish freighter off the Florida coast.

      Bosch freely admitted that he had been trained in paramilitary operations by the U.S. government. The cluster of anti-Castro groups and their CIA handlers in Operation Mongoose eventually rose to the highest levels of the U.S. intelligence community and many of those associated with the group rose to high public office. These would include Ted Shackley and Yale-educated Porter Goss. Shackley became Associate Deputy Director of Operations at the CIA during the Carter administration and would eventually back George H.W. Bush’s presidential run in 1980 and play a key role in the Contra war in Nicaragua after he retired from the Agency. Goss was elected to Congress and later appointed CIA director.

  2. As far as he goes, Mr. Grandin presents a reasonably accurate account of events in South America, including Operation Condor, the 1954 US-instigated coup in Guatemala, and the effort to implement more efficient security organs in various countries that were experiencing Leftist terrorist organizations. Nevertheless, Mr. Grandin’s piece is noteworthy as much for what he omits as for what he includes in his litany of US involvement.

    Mr. Grandin completely omits any mention of the extremely dangerous and vicious Leftist movements that existed at the time and later–The Montoneros in Argentina, the Tupamaros in Uruguay, the Movimiento Izquirdista Revolutionario (MIR) in Chile, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolutionarios de Colombia (FARC) in Colombia, and later the Sendero Luminoso in Peru are good examples. These Leftists movements were willing to attack and kill their perceived opponents every bit as much as the governments were. Without mentioning these movements, Mr. Grandin tells only half of the story.

    Finally, by his statement, “The CIA-backed coup by General Pinochet and his military led to the death of Chile’s democratically-elected President Salvador Allende,” Mr. Grandin seeks to perpetuate the enduring Leftist myth that the US was behind the 1973 coup.

    As was brought out in Senator Frank Church’s 1975 Senate hearings on the CIA’s intelligence activities, the CIA did provide $8 million over a three-year period to various opposition groups in Chile to keep them going, including labor unions, the anti-Allende newspaper El Mercurio (which Allende was attempting to shut down by having the nationalized banks withhold credit for newsprint), and others. I assume that many readers of this forum would not favor a government attempt to close down an opposition newspaper. Nevertheless, the U.S. provided neither funding nor assistance in the planning and execution of the coup itself. Although Embassy officials had evidence that something was afoot, they were not privy to the timing and actual plan itself. As far as Allende’s death, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that he committed suicide in the Presidential palace, using the rifle given him by Fidel Castro.

    Anyone who has served in Chile and studied the 1973 coup would find it laughable to hear someone insist that the Chilean military would need assistance from the U.S. The Chilean military was (and is) a very professional military, and was perfectly capable of planning and executing the coup on its own. That the United States was glad to see Allende overthrown is undeniable. It does not follow, however, that the United States engineered the action that led to his overthrow.

    • “the other half of the story.”

      Is this to say that the actions of things like Sendero and FARC were/are “equivalent” to what the various right-wing rulers and militaries and death squads did to the people of the countries they were active in? To what’s going on now, under the rubric of “the War on Drugs?” Got any support for that, other than the bald assertion? Body counts, maybe? Blown-up and shuttered newspapers and radio stations? Curfews, organized theft of land, terror against ordinary citizens?

      I know, sometimes it’s hard to gather and marshal facts, particularly when so many of the dead were “disappeared,” as in flown out over the ocean and kicked out of the aircraft…

      And of course, how about some support for the tacit assertion that the CIA and other covert and overt US “involvements” in our southern neighbors’ business and lives were, I guess, not that big a deal?

      Here’s part of what we are supposed to find falsely equivalent to “revolutionary terrorist populist movements:”

      link to thirdworldtraveler.com

      I’m sure you’ve heard of the “School of the Americas,” right? Teaching the spread of Democracy, American Style?

      Re Allende, despite the bland assurances, there sure seems to be a persistent set of facts and opinion that lays a little more than passive “knowledge that something was afoot” at the feet of the US sneaky-pete/jackal people… link to thirdworldtraveler.com and a whole googlelot more.

      • Your attempt to provide your own interpretation of what I wrote to fit your preconceived Narrative, Mr. McPhee, is so transparently obvious that it barely warrants a response. Please read what I wrote, after first removing your ideological lenses, and you will note that I did not suggest the Leftist, terrorist, guerrilla movements were “equivalent” to the governments in each country.

        I did note that the actions of those governments cannot be properly understood without mentioning these movements. Such movements committed some pretty horrible atrocities themselves. I obviously was not justifying all actions of the governments in question, but To omit any mention of these movements is to tell only half of the story. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

        • Oh, and Bill, great work completely distracting us from the point of the article you’re attacking – that Latin America stopped torturing when it stopped obeying the United States of America. Is there a reason you don’t want to discuss that or its moral implications?

    • “….enduring Leftist myth that the U.S. was behind the 1973 coup.”

      Wasn’t ex-CIA director Richard Helms convicted of lying to Congress in covering up the CIA involvement in the 1973 overthrow of Allende?

      Hasn’t there been extensive research tying the late David S. Morales, a high-ranking CIA officer, to the 1973 coup in Chile. Morales had been involved in the Jacobo Arbenz coup in Guatemala in 1954 and also was CIA paramiltary operations chief for Operation Mongoose in Miami in the 1960s to subvert Castro. Morales’ personal attorney and friend, John Walton, went on the record to confirm Morales’ role in the 1973 Chile coup in an interview.

      Wasn’t the late former CIA director Richard Helms sued in 2001 over the death of Chilean General Rene Schneider?

      Didn’t Operation Condor result in the death of 60,000 persons? Did it not inspire the Costa-Gavras film “Missing”.

    • Milton Friedman and his acolytes laid the hyper-capitalist ideological foundation used by Pinochet to justify his brutality against the poor and leftist. The CIA assisted Friedman’s boys all over Latin America in doing this. Read Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine”, a book whose truthfulness was borne out by its forecast of the homecoming of Friedmanite “libertarian” tyranny in the form of Scott Walker and his war to destroy public sector unions and state universities – coordinated with many other GOP governors and legislatures all introducing similar bills simultaneously.

      And if we were glad for what happened to Chile, we are sick and have no business running the world.

  3. The drift of Latin America away from the American sphere of influence is perhaps the most underreported development in global politics in the last quarter century, probably because it’s been largely peaceful.

    • It hasn’t been exactly peaceful (though I’d agree with “largely” peaceful) — the US side of it was brutal and violent, as were the US’s allies like Pinochet. The good guys were pretty impressively non-violent, though not quite Ghandi style.

      South American countries, and to a lesser extent Central American countries, have simply figured out how to beat the US empire. It’s a lesson the rest of the world is going to learn. Heck, it would be good for those of us in the US to learn it — the empire is bad for us too.

      As for the “underreported” nature of the development — that is also true, but it’s underreported because the US imperialists do *not want* people to read about how South Americans beat the US. Stories of the US losing, and how it was beaten, are consistently underreported within the US.

    • Also largely successful. That’s the part the corporate media doesn’t want us to know. We, and especially our billionaires, do not know or want what’s best for the developing world.

Comments are closed.