US Bases in Colombia Part II
A while back Turk182 wrote about the news in BBC that the US was signing a deal with Colombia for US bases in that country. view link
Now it appears the deal has been signed. Interesting writing about the deal. Again the BBC presented a very straight forward account. view link
But in his usual very poor reporting using half information and over use of adjectives Hugh Bronstein presented his view for Reuters news. view link
What stuck me as funny is a similar quote in both reportings. BBC wrote: "On Tuesday Colombian Defence Minister Gabriel Silva insisted the agreement did not constitute a major new development but simply a continuation of US-Colombian co-operation.
He said it was supported by the majority of Colombians who, he said, wanted more security.
Hugh Bronstein wrote: "But polls show most Colombians back the deal." and did not quote anyone.
Now, I have not found any mention of a poll in Colombian news. So far every single Colombian I have spoken with is against the US bases. And I have seen much graffiti in Bogota that reads something like, "No Gringo bases."
Why Colombians tell me they are against it. American forces in the deal have immunity. In the past American soldiers have sold arms to terrorists and raped a 12 year old girl. The soldier who did the later was flown out of the country and no action has been taken against him to date. Second, Colombia has one of the the most unequal distributions of income in the world and corruption in government is rampant. Many Colombians state that the US money actually continues the drugs because the politicians make money from the drugs and from the US money for the war against them through the corruption.
A bothersome thing about the deal is that of the other 16 Latin American countries only one, Peru, agrees with it. Obama has said and done much about more transparency in government but things seem to change with this deal. The President of Brazil has complained that this deal has had no transparency in it. Other countries agree and this has caused more dislike of America rather than promoting a more friendly relationship within the area. A think tank in 2004 stated that a deal like this should go through the US congress and it should have much transparency as well. Again, the deal was not brought before congress. Note that it was also not brought before the Colombian congress. This action is pointed out by some as furthering the contention of corruption and providing money to specific Colombian politicians.
The deal seems to me to be going in opposition to some of the principles that Obama has both spoken of and demonstrated in other areas. But there could be more at play here than what we are being told like the fact that a Colombian company paid former president Bill Clinton almost $1 million for speaking fees and that the Clintons have friends with large financial interests in Colombia, not to mention that a second person in the petroleum business in Colombia has told me the country has more potential oil than Venezuela and that land is controlled by many politicians. A research report by a university student in Iowa showed that less than 1/10 of one percent of the population of the Colombia owns 56% of the land.
We may never know the real reason the deal was signed, but I doubt the reason is what they are reporting.
Now it appears the deal has been signed. Interesting writing about the deal. Again the BBC presented a very straight forward account. view link
But in his usual very poor reporting using half information and over use of adjectives Hugh Bronstein presented his view for Reuters news. view link
What stuck me as funny is a similar quote in both reportings. BBC wrote: "On Tuesday Colombian Defence Minister Gabriel Silva insisted the agreement did not constitute a major new development but simply a continuation of US-Colombian co-operation.
He said it was supported by the majority of Colombians who, he said, wanted more security.
Hugh Bronstein wrote: "But polls show most Colombians back the deal." and did not quote anyone.
Now, I have not found any mention of a poll in Colombian news. So far every single Colombian I have spoken with is against the US bases. And I have seen much graffiti in Bogota that reads something like, "No Gringo bases."
Why Colombians tell me they are against it. American forces in the deal have immunity. In the past American soldiers have sold arms to terrorists and raped a 12 year old girl. The soldier who did the later was flown out of the country and no action has been taken against him to date. Second, Colombia has one of the the most unequal distributions of income in the world and corruption in government is rampant. Many Colombians state that the US money actually continues the drugs because the politicians make money from the drugs and from the US money for the war against them through the corruption.
A bothersome thing about the deal is that of the other 16 Latin American countries only one, Peru, agrees with it. Obama has said and done much about more transparency in government but things seem to change with this deal. The President of Brazil has complained that this deal has had no transparency in it. Other countries agree and this has caused more dislike of America rather than promoting a more friendly relationship within the area. A think tank in 2004 stated that a deal like this should go through the US congress and it should have much transparency as well. Again, the deal was not brought before congress. Note that it was also not brought before the Colombian congress. This action is pointed out by some as furthering the contention of corruption and providing money to specific Colombian politicians.
The deal seems to me to be going in opposition to some of the principles that Obama has both spoken of and demonstrated in other areas. But there could be more at play here than what we are being told like the fact that a Colombian company paid former president Bill Clinton almost $1 million for speaking fees and that the Clintons have friends with large financial interests in Colombia, not to mention that a second person in the petroleum business in Colombia has told me the country has more potential oil than Venezuela and that land is controlled by many politicians. A research report by a university student in Iowa showed that less than 1/10 of one percent of the population of the Colombia owns 56% of the land.
We may never know the real reason the deal was signed, but I doubt the reason is what they are reporting.
