The troglodyte parliamentary coup that ousted President of Paraguay Fernando Lugo brought attention to two very important issues. First, the United States — whose embassy in Asuncion has incubated the downfall of the president since 2009 — has been the designer, manufacturer or accomplice in all coups against the democratic governments of Latin America, although recently it dresses this up in costumes distinct from the traditional facades.
The United States lists governments that result from elections as “friends” only when they submit to its dictations and do not carry out reforms that affect U.S. interests. This is demonstrated by strong evidence and investigations by numerous eminent, yet poorly known historians, such as the Argentinian, Gregorio Selser.
Second, this traditional behavior has not been changed, especially during the administration of Barack Obama, who has not only continued it, but rather deepened the policy of his predecessor toward our region, pursuing the same objectives, but this time using the power called “intelligence.”
This brings, among other things, forming alliances with right-leaning governments in the region or with others as necessary, co-opting leaders who display pan-Latin American positions, and attempting to divide the block of progressive governments. Another important component is the infiltration of popular forces through “Yankee” and European foundations or NGOs, or even United States Agency for International Development itself, whose expulsion from some countries was recently agreed upon by members of the Bolivian Alliance for the Americas. Suddenly we find social struggles with legitimate claims used for right-wing purposes against the popular leaders.
With Bush and Obama, the presidents who oppose neoliberal policies vehemently have faced numerous coup attempts; let’s call it a thing of the new generations. This happened in Venezuela three times, in Bolivia, twice, the most recent having been aborted a few hours ago, and once in Ecuador. The coups against the patriotic, Latin American presidents of Honduras and Paraguay were successful due to the political and military strength of the right wing, compared to the weakness of their popular movements, which were not sufficiently articulated. However, there are differences between the two. Former Honduran President Zelaya had a qualitatively superior team compared to the one that Lugo had, and more combativeness. Zelaya, before and after the coup, encouraged the forging of an exemplary resistance movement.
On the other hand, Lugo chose to make concessions to the traditional Paraguayan right, hoping that by doing so he could avoid his political downfall. Even so, the populace continues referring to him as president and calls for him to lead the resistance. Now it is good to remember that in the past, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa and Salvador Allende — since they were candidates — had to overcome fierce campaigns of slander and machinations orchestrated by the U.S. and the oligarchies with the proverbial complicity of media consortia.
Evo was able to his first term only because of the considerable support in his favor, while there was plenty of evidence of “electoral fraud.” The same formula is applied and implemented in our region against any applicant that intends to change, even moderately, the neoliberal model. And if it’s impossible stop his or her rise to the presidency, Washington and the oligarchy will not give a moment of respite, starting the instant in which his or her victory is announced, as they have done with the leaders mentioned.
This is also the case with Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who was subjected to an intense dirty war before and after her first election by the Clarín media group, and La Nación and its continental partners. She was also subjected to the first rural coup attempts, and now to a truck driver’s union attack, which was launched by a strange alliance among landowners, exporters, a culturally colonized middle class, uneducated left wing groups and resentful people of the day.
It is important to delve into what ties these events together, along with others such as the attack on Ecuador in 2008, and the planned restoration of the Fourth Fleet, the network of military devices and security arrangements similar to the “Colombia Plan” planted by Washington from the very south of Rio Grande throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. This is a plan to destroy the governments that oppose neoliberal policies and to plunder their resources when the economic collapse of a struggling empire pushes it to conquer at all costs.
“…the economic collapse of a struggling empire pushes it to conquer at all costs.”
This is quite right, of course. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. If the US were not in such extreme denial of its imminent fate, it would be welcoming Latin America’s self-determination. Instead, it pulls the fourth fleet out of mothballs yet expects Latin America to enter into a free trade agreement with North America, even as it illustrates the worst examples of what free trade does to ordinary people.