Obama’s Legacy In Latin America: Militarization, Right-Wing Coups, & The Rule Of Wall St.

With just hours left for the Obama administration, independent geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser reviews the president’s legacy of destabilizing, militarizing, and exploiting Latin America.
By | Follow on Facebook | @stopimperialism |
Be Sociable, Share!
  • Reddit
    • Google+

    Advertisment

    “Tis now the very witching time of night,

    When churchyards yawn and hell itself breathes out

    Contagion to this world”

    – William Shakespeare, from “Hamlet”

    NEW YORK —  (Opinion) It seems we have arrived at the witching hour of Obama’s presidency, when corporate media ghouls continue to breathe out the infectious contagion of liberal lies and half-truths about the Great Dissimulator and his accomplishments.

    Whether it’s The New York Times’ opinion pages hailing Dr. Changelove as “The Most Successful Democrat Since F.D.R.,” or the noxious nostalgia for the present injected into the public discourse like so many palliatives into the bloodstream of a terminal patient, the true history of Obama’s presidency is being veiled behind a mask of delusion.

    Maybe it’s the Orange-Headed Hydra assuming power in Washington that gives the outgoing administration that air of dignity and grace. Maybe it’s the desire to craft a narrative in which “Hope” and “Change” were something other than hollow campaign slogans deftly employed by a charlatan of the first order. Or maybe it’s just business as usual in the heart of the U.S. Empire. No matter the reason, Barack Obama’s media-induced sainthood is now all but complete in liberal America’s collective psyche.

    But the United States is not the only “America.”

    Indeed, crossing the southern border and entering into that mysterious place called “Latin America,” one encounters a very different Obama legacy, one that is defined by the same policies that Yankee imperialists have employed for more than a century: destabilization, militarization, and exploitation.

    Yes We Can!…continue to pursue a neocolonial agenda in Central and South America.  

     

    Obama’s love affair with the right wing

    A mural in Lithuania depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin and President-elect Donald Trump embracing in a passionate kiss has gone viral. The meaning of the image is about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the skull, but it is no less perspicacious for its lack of subtlety. And while Russia has indeed tacitly, and rather shamefully, supported far-right candidates and causes for its own coldly pragmatic political reasons — Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, etc. — the truth is that Obama’s administration has also backed right-wing reactionaries and extremists where it has suited its interests.

    Throughout Latin America, President Obama has been a driving force behind the resurgence of right-wing forces that have rolled back the gains of socialist and social democratic governments, targeted indigenous and African diaspora communities, assassinated activists, and toppled governments where they could.

    So, yes, let’s talk about “legacy.”

    In Honduras, Obama’s legacy was cemented from the very beginning of his presidency. In the summer of 2009, Manuel Zelaya, the country’s democratically-elected left-wing president, was removed from power in a midnight coup orchestrated by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her cronies in Washington and in Tegucigalpa. And while Obama’s tepid condemnation of the coup elicited cheers from many liberals in its contrast to the Bush administration’s loving embrace of the coup against Hugo Chávez in Venezuela in 2002, the reality is that, as with all things Obama, it was mere words. The support of the president and his henchwoman was the driving force behind the coup.

    Clinton is never one to shy away from an opportunity to boast about the amount of blood on her hands. In a passage which removed from later editions of her book “Hard Choices,” she rather brazenly admitted:

    “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico. We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot and give the Honduran people a chance to choose their own future.”

    Obama’s top diplomat was instrumental in installing a right-wing government backed by the wealthiest business interests in Honduras and powerful players in Washington. As Clinton bagman Lanny Davis openly stated in an interview just weeks after the coup:

    “My clients represent the CEAL, the [Honduras Chapter of] Business Council of Latin America. … I do not represent the government and do not talk to [interim] President [Roberto] Micheletti. My main contacts are [billionaires] Camilo Atala and Jorge Canahuati. I’m proud to represent businessmen who are committed to the rule of law.”

    Indeed, Davis quite candidly exposed himself as an agent of powerful oligarch financiers and landowners who, until the election of Zelaya, had always maintained firm control of the reins of government in Honduras. These are precisely the people, backed by the Obama administration, wielding power in Honduras today through a violent right-wing government that assassinates indigenous leaders and human rights defenders such as Berta Cáceres, Margarita Murillo, and many others for the sake of investors who seek to develop indigenous, Afro-Caribbean, and peasant lands for massive profits.

    Beyond the killings of activists and the political backing of a right-wing coup government, Obama’s legacy in Honduras is also one of militarization. In 2014, The North American Congress on Latin America reported:

    “The steady increase of U.S. assistance to [Honduran] national armed forces has, if anything, been an indicator of tacit U.S. support. But the U.S. role in militarization of national police forces has been direct as well. In 2011 and 2012, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Foreign-deployed Advisory Support Team (FAST)—which had previously carried out military-style missions in Afghanistan—set up camp in Honduras to train a local counternarcotics police unit and help plan and execute drug interdiction operations …

    Supported by U.S. helicopters mounted with high caliber machine guns, these operations were nearly indistinguishable from military missions, and locals routinely referred to the DEA and Honduran police agents as “soldados” (soldiers).”

    The NACLA report further noted that the Obama administration deployed at least five “commando style squads” of FAST teams across Central America. It added that, in Honduras, U.S. and Colombian special forces units have been training, equipping, and deploying with a new “elite” police unit called the Intelligence Troop and Special Security Group, or TIGRES (Spanish for “tigers”), which human rights groups argue is military in nature.

    Ultimately, the man who rode the crest of a wave of “Hope” and “Change” not only brought more of the same to Honduras, and Latin America generally, he actually accelerated the re-conquest of the region by the forces of the military-industrial complex and finance capital.

     

    Obama’s rightward push in South America

    Another example of this confluence between Obama’s right-wing fetish and Wall Street’s boot on the neck of Latin America came last year in Brazil, when Dilma Rousseff’s democratically-elected government was removed from office in what can only be described as a parliamentary coup.

    In mid-April of 2016, Reuters published a story exposing Michel Temer, the right-wing vice president at the time and the current president, as preparing the shortlist of his presumptive cabinet months before the Rousseff government had been toppled.

    Temer tapped Paulo Leme to serve as either finance minister or head of the Central Bank. Leme is the chairman of Goldman Sachs’s operations in Brazil, making him perhaps the preeminent representative of Wall Street in the country. While his appointment may have been perceived as too brazen, the trend of Wall Street representatives steering the ship of Brazil’s economic and political life is impossible to ignore.

    Perhaps it is no coincidence that the Obama administration, too, has been dominated from the beginning by the same types of financiers — often from the very same companies such as Goldman Sachs — that control the coup government in Brazil. The not-so-invisible hand of finance capital is now tightly coiled around the neck of Brazil. Another feather in Obama’s legacy cap.

    Of course, there’s Obama’s graceful tango with the new right-wing government in Argentina led by Wall Street darling Mauricio Macri. While Obama was wining and dining the neoliberal reactionary, Macri was busy loading his new government with Wall Street insiders and representatives of Big Oil and other major industries.  

    This was the real Obama, the one who will not be paraded before Americans as the revered dear leader already missed before he’s left the stage. Rather, this was the man who, without conscience or compunction, ushered in a wave of right-wing reaction throughout the Western hemisphere.  

    And he did it with a smile.

     

    Obama’s quiet militarization of Latin America

    One of Obama’s great accomplishments in the service of the military-industrial complex was his below-the-radar militarization of the region. The pervasive myth of Obama as distinctly different from George W. Bush lives on in the diseased minds of liberal sycophants, but the facts tell a different story.

    Obama represented continuity with, and an expansion of, the worst policies of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton when it came to Latin America. Plan Colombia, the broad heading for the billions of dollars spent on U.S. military engagement and cooperation in Colombia begun by Clinton and expanded by Bush, was further expanded under Obama.

    Just totaling the military, police, and economic aid to Colombia for 2010 to 2015, the United States has given nearly $3 billion to Colombia in the form of “aid” to fight the so-called “War on Drugs,” widely seen as merely a cover for U.S. military power projection in South America. Add to that the fact that during Obama’s tenure, and under former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command William McRaven, special forces troop deployments ballooned to more than 65,000, with many spread throughout Latin America.

    In an eerily similar fashion, Obama expanded funding and scope for the Mérida Initiative, a project launched by Bush in 2008 which essentially makes Mexico’s military and law enforcement into a de facto arm of the U.S. military and government. As with Plan Colombia (and AFRICOM), even though Obama did not launch this initiative, he expanded it significantly, providing more than $2.5 billion since 2008.  

    But if liberals want to soothe their broken hearts with the fact that Obama did not actually launch these programs, they might want to consider the Central American Regional Security Initiative, created by Obama in 2011.

    According to a March 2014 report from the Igarapé Institute, an independent security and development think tank based in Brazil, CARSI and Mérida alone received nearly $3 billion (2008-2013). It is an open secret that the massive funding has been channeled primarily into military and paramilitary programs. Though the United States touts these programs as success stories, their expansion has coincided with increased militarization in every country where U.S. funds have been provided.

    In El Salvador, the government led by President Mauricio Funes consolidated military control of law enforcement in the interests of its U.S. backers. These changes took place simultaneous to the implementation of CARSI, and should be seen as an outgrowth of U.S. militarization. In Guatemala, the government of Otto Pérez Molina, a former military leader with a record of atrocities and genocide, further militarized the country before being imprisoned for corruption in September of 2015.  

    Similarly, Honduras has been transformed into the U.S. military’s primary foothold in Central America. U.S. Coordinator of the National Popular Resistance Front (FNRP) and Refoundation Party (LIBRE) Lucy Pagoada explained in a 2015 interview that “[Honduras] has turned into a large military base trained and funded by the U.S. They even have School of the Americas forces there.”

    “There have been high levels of violence and torture since the [2009] coup,” Pagoada continued.

     

    Good cop, bad cop: Obama’s policies on Cuba and Venezuela

    Of course, no discussion of Obama’s actions in Latin America would be complete without an examination of Washington’s attempts to reassert its influence in the region with the simultaneous thaw in relations with Cuba and the destabilization of Venezuela.

    Obama signed an executive order on Jan. 13 declaring both Venezuela and Cuba “national security threats” despite no evidence of any such threat. Isn’t it interesting that the president being lauded as the man who sought to normalize relations with America’s long-standing foe in Cuba still manages to not only classify the country as a threat, but to expand that same status to another geopolitical and strategic enemy in the region?

    The Obama administration has attempted to undermine and destabilize Venezuela using as pretexts everything from a border dispute with neighboring Guyana to artificially created scarcity of staple goods and speculation against the currency by elites who control commodity distribution networks in the country, and whose backers reside in Madrid, Miami, and Washington. Julio Escalona, an economist and former Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations, told me in Caracas in 2015: “Our currency is not being devalued by speculation, but by hyper-speculation.”

    And, in signature Obama style, Washington has backed the right wing, including many far right fanatics, in an attempt to wrest political control of the country away from the ruling Socialist Party (PSUV) led by President Nicolás Maduro (and in spirit by Hugo Chávez).  

    Perhaps the best example is the targeted assassination of numerous prominent members of the PSUV, including the 2014 killing of Robert Serra, an up-and-coming Chavista legislator seen by many on the Venezuelan left as the “next Chávez.” Serra was assassinated by individuals connected to Álvaro Uribe, the former president of Colombia and long-standing U.S. proxy.

    Similarly, the well-respected journalist and prominent Chavista Ricardo Duran was murdered outside his home in Caracas in January of 2016. Likewise, Fritz St. Louis, international coordinator of the United Socialist Haitian Movement and secretary general of the Haitian Cultural House Bolivariana de Venezuela, was assassinated in March of 2016. In all these killings, the hidden hand of the right wing and its backers in the United States has been an open secret.

    And where is the outcry from the liberals who continue to laud Obama? Perhaps now that a Republican is in office they might soon dust off their political consciences to raise their voices against continued U.S. neocolonialism and imperialism in Latin America? Apparently, their interest in human rights and peace is dependent on the color of the tie worn by the man or woman in the Oval Office.

    Obama’s legacy in Latin America is, like that of all other U.S. presidents of the last century, one of profit and exploitation, death and destruction. This is surely no secret in Latin America, where millions have raised, and will continue to raise, their voices in opposition to the Yankee Empire.

    Unfortunately, the myth of the Nobel Peace Prize winner has become stronger than the reality of lived experience.

    In this witching hour, the twilight of Obama’s presidency, let us not be entranced by spells cast by the coven of corporate media warlocks. Let us instead remember Obama’s legacy in Latin America not as “Hope” and “Change,” but as “More of the Same.”

    Be Sociable, Share!

       

      Print This Story Print This Story
      You Might Also Like  
      ___________________________________________
      This entry was posted in Foreign Affairs, Front Page: Inside Stories, Inside Stories, Top Stories and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
      • Pingback: Brazil's Manufactured Coup: The ‘Shock Doctrine’ Returns To Latin America()

      • Victor Morillo Blanco

        We must be very careful when we name a whole people. That is wrong.That undermines our credibility. When we say “Jews”, we are talking about a people, not a corrupt government or party, a criminal army or secret service.

      • Pingback: Obamas arv i Latin-Amerika: høyreorienterte kuppregjeringer, militarisering og Wall Streets herredømme – Midt i fleisen()

      • James Williamson

        Brexit was a right-wing phenomenon? Eric, you’ve been reading the MSM and believing it.

      • James Williamson

        Good article overall. But some glaring misperceptions. It’s not that Putin is backing a “far-right candidate.” He’s attempting to form a peaceful relationship with the US. If Putin and the Russians had not entered Syria, we would be in serious trouble now. Not to mention that the NATO scumbags are dying to engage with the Russians. Why? It’s insane! Also, if Shillery had been elected, we would have had a no-fly zone imposed on Syria immediately, which would have led automatically to WWIII.

      • Pingback: El legado de Obama en América Latina: Militarización, Derecha política golpes de estado, y la regla de Wall Street. – PSOB1()

      • Pingback: 1.23.2017 Nearly Naked Links | Daily Links & News()

      • Pingback: Obama’s Legacy In Latin America: Militarization, Right-Wing Coups, & The Rule Of Wall St. | NewZSentinel()

      • TeeJae

        Excellent essay. One bone to pick, though: You ask, “And where is the outcry from the liberals who continue to laud Obama?” That’s unfair. Chances are most are completely unaware of all of this simply because they follow mainstream news, which, as you alluded to earlier in the article, has done its best to keep the US public in the dark. I guarantee if they knew, there would be very loud outcries from those liberals. One can only be moved to action if they are first properly informed.

        • Debbie Tolson

          Perhaps, like me, they should get their news elsewhere. For God’s sake it is not that hard. Jesus, we have a country of morons and now Betty DeVos will ruin public education the result of which I cannot not even comprehend. A tragedy.

          • Debraadoi

            Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !uq414c:
            On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
            !uq414c:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash704MarketGlobalGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!uq414c:….,….

          • TeeJae

            They (and everyone else) SHOULD get their news elsewhere, specifically from the only purveyors of truth out there – independent outlets. Fortunately, as trust in mainstream media continues to erode, more people are turning to independent media. It’s kinda fun to watch mainstream media implode out of desperation with their pathetic attempts to remain relevant. Let’s help that along by encouraging everyone we know to make the switch to independent news.

            • James Wherry

              In general, the mainstream media is accurate, if biased in WHAT they cover. The facts are correct. However, your comment suggests that “independent outlets” are dependable (and presumably unbiased).

              1. Independents wear their biases on their sleevers. MPN is no exception. What bothers me is NOT “what they want to cover” but the outright lies and the assumptions reported as facts. The absurd statements about what international law IS are also non-sense.

              2. There are left-wing independent bloggers and right-wing ones, all same the opposite things. They cannot both be right.

      • James Wherry

        LOL! Another article on this website written by a right-wing John Birch Society member.

        * President Obama stood up to both parties and worked to normalize relations with Cuba – at the request of the rest of Latin American countries.

        * President Obama supported the peace proposal to end decades of violence by the FARC in Columbia.

        * There’s no evidence anything in El Salvador was directed by the U.S. government or benefited our military. These are unsubstantiated and unsupported comments.

        * Perez Molina WAS imprisoned for corruption. That doesn’t fit in this silly narrative.

        As to “love affairs with right-wing governments,” what did you want? Military interventionism? “Military isolationism” means we stick our noses OUT of other people’s business, whether it is the Russian dictatorship, the Syrian dictatorship, or any of the less-than acceptable right-wing or left-wing governments in South America and Latin America.

        Bottomline: if you don’t like this, then support someone more electable than Jill Stein.

        • Josh Stern

          Acts against the people of Honduras, Brazil, Venezuela, etc. we can do without. Yes, it’s hard to *prove* many allegations in the short term – the CIA docs, cheering their covert & clandestine activities and the war crimes trials tend to happen 30 or so years too late for the victims. But in terms of what we see, it is a lot of same old, same old. The terrorist training school once known as School of the Americas still operates as the “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation” in Fort Benning GA. – it was moved out of the canal zone after Omar Torrijos had the temerity to ask that the US honor its treaties and not host a terrorist base there, which resulted in Reagan/CIA having him assassinated. Obama/Brennan was a lot less bloody than Reagan/Casey…

          • James Wherry

            Yes, sometimes classified documents surprise me, years later, I will admit. And while I generally sneer at conspiracy theories, the over-throw of Iran’s Prime Minister Mossadaq show they happen, even under the most benign President, President Eisenhower.

            Contrary to this website’s favorite NAZ!, “tapatio,” I have never been to the SOA or WHINSEC, but I reject the notion that it is a school for terrorism. I know the JAGs who teach there and they teach the Geneva Conventions and the ethical use of force. The fact that graduates went out of the school and committed crimes is absurd as blaming Harvard or the University of California at Berkley for the Unibomber, Ted Kaczynski.

        • TeeJae

          As to point 1 – Everyone knows (except you, apparently) that we normalize relations with Cuba for the sole purpose of our business interests to expand their operations there. This was most blatantly evidenced by the large delegation of business people Obama took down there with him.

          Point 2 – A “peace” proposal that would have benefited capitalist interests more than the people. Of course, our mainstream media purposely did not frame it that way.

          Point 3 – it wasn’t about benefiting our military. It was about benefiting our business interests.

          To answer your last question, what we WANT is for our government to stop its imperialistic practice of overthrowing left-leaning governments for the sake of installing capitalist-friendly (and often murderous) ones.

          • James Wherry

            So everything that Fidel Castro worked for and the American left approved of can be spun as “pro-business.” That is intellectual dishonesty

            • TeeJae

              That’s not at all what I said. But your attempt to twist my words (or your gross misinterpretation of them) is not surprising.

              • James Wherry

                When you make the argument that the ONLY reason we normalized relations with Cuba was for the MONEY, that’s the argument that YOU are making.

                We have more reasons than that, including the VAIN hope that human rights and democracy will be positively affected by the change in relations. Unfortunately, you impute only bad motives to the USA because the American Left wants to denigrate the USA to tear it down so they can rebuild America “in their own image and likeness.”

                • TeeJae

                  Well, that’s an interesting theory. I thought it was to build a more prosperous society where everyone has a fair shot at the “American Dream” (in quotes because it’s a fake notion) and isn’t used as a tool for the rich to get richer.

                  • James Wherry

                    Trade with Cuba does not promote the “American dream.” They are not Americans: they live in the Americas, but they are not citizens of the United States.

                    What we have been sold is the idea that exposing Cubans to American capitalism will somehow spark a revolution of free thought, however 950,000 Canadians per year vacation in Cuba. What has that done for Cuban human rights or democracy?

                    • TeeJae

                      I can’t tell if you’re intentionally straw-manning, or if you just keep missing my point. So, I’ll say it again:

                      We’re normalizing relations with Cuba to expand the interests of US corporations. Period. If Trump is yet another status quo puppet (which I suspect he is), I guarantee we’ll see US businesses popping up all over the island in the next few years. Watch and see.

                      • James Wherry

                        TeeJae,
                        So, let’s clear up a few things:

                        1. I don’t generally trade in “strawman arguments.” I will often re-state something someone has said, when the CONCLUSION is so ridiculous. Example: “If we have a ban on citizens of terrorist countries coming into our country, it will inspire violence and attacks on America.”

                        “Really?” I ask. “So, you’re saying that Muslims believe we have to do what they want, or they’ll murder us?!?” That re-statement is not a Strawman Argument, but a re-statement of an unspoken conclusion that USUALLY is not what the speaker wanted to hear. Most of them fall silent and realize who dumb their initial comment was.

                        2. President Trump did not seek to normalize anything with Fidel Castro: the POPE asked President Obama to do so. Is the Pope trying to promote capitalism? THIS Pope?!?

                        3. President Trump did not normalize relations with Cuba: President Obama did. Expect Trump to consider reversing it.

                        4. The THEORY is that trade will lead to democracy and human rights. It is a dumb idea – 950,000 Canadians visit and vacation in Cuba every year and what effect has it had on those issues? None. However, it is the Cuban GOVERNMENT that is preventing U.S. corporations from coming there and the U.S. government – which granted 200 waivers under President Obama – pointedly asked them about that.

                        5. If your argument is right, then Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and both Bushes are the paragons of virtue because they put “human rights above profits.”

                        How thoughtful of you to compliment our Republican leaders. Thank you.

                        • TeeJae

                          1. The only reason to restate someone’s statement is to argue a different point that can easily be knocked down (straw man) or to redirect the debate to a different topic (red herring). Either way, you’re avoiding the original topic.

                          In your example, you employ another logical fallacy – drawing an erroneous conclusion based on a faulty assumption or interpretation, which inevitably leads to putting (the wrong) words in someone else’s mouth. This is never necessary, except for trolls wanting to play their little troll games.

                          The “silence” that follows is the other person’s realization of that, and that it’d be a waste of time to try and reason with the unreasonable.

                          The rest of your points go on to serve as perfect examples of each: 2 & 3 are red herrings, 4 & 5 are straw men.

                          Hear that? That’s me going to do something better with my time.

                        • James Wherry

                          No, A reason to restate a position is to expose the logical fallacies in their arguments. That’s what I’ve tried to do to help you, despite your increasingly erratic posts.

                          Yes, I know you are a troll. You lost any respect, when you told the nwo-NAZ!, “TAPATIO,” that you “shared similar views” with him. Even Helen4Yemen and Dale Ruff have told the hat hate-fills bigot and homophobe to take a hike.

                          Whatever excuse you want to use is fine by me. Your conversation usually is a waste of time, but I am not going to let you miss lead readers. If you feel you do not need to respond to me that is fine. I have absolutely no respect for your opinions and I do not value them at this juncture.