Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Patrolling America's Backyard?

By Kelly Hearn, AlterNet. Posted November 4, 2005.


As President Bush visits Latin America this weekend, he faces local hostility about why the U.S. military has stationed soldiers in Paraguay.
Advertisement

A military deal between the U.S. and Paraguay has put U.S. Special Forces in the sweaty heart of South America, just south of the Tropic of Capricorn. It has also fanned fears that the Bush administration is tip-toeing towards a revised Cold War interventionism on a continent increasingly distanced from Washington.

U.S. officials say troops will operate in small numbers, for short periods of time and will conduct some humanitarian missions along with Paraguayan units, according to a July 7 statement released by U.S. embassy officials in Asunción, the capital.

"U.S. personnel in small numbers, generally between 10 to 20 people, will train with their Paraguayan military colleges during periods from two to six weeks," the statement said. "The U.S. soldiers will not be deployed for extended periods of time and there will never be more than a few dozen U.S. service members in Paraguay for more than 45 days." U.S. officials have downplayed the deal, stressing that the joint exercises, which will focus on counter-terrorism, drug-interdiction and humanitarian aid, are similar to past ones.

But the agreement, approved by the Paraguayan Congress in June, has raised popular worries that the U.S. is trying to establish a permanent military base in South America. Suspicion of ulterior Washington motives involves a large but mostly unused airfield at the Mariscal Estigarribia base in the northern Paraguay. Lawmakers have given the Pentagon access to the base, which was built by U.S. technicians in the 1980s and is larger than Paraguay's civilian airport in Asunción.  

Theories have spread in regional media and on the streets. One says the Pentagon wants to get close to vast natural gas reserves in Bolivia, a country where populist political movements are gaining power.  Another claims the U.S. wants to control the Guarani Aquifer, one of the world's biggest underground water aquifers. "The only thing the U.S. wants is the aquifer," says Noelia Delgado, a store clerk in Buenos Aires, echoing a common sentiment here. "They want what is below the ground."

Perhaps the most intriguing belief is that the U.S. wants to better monitor the so-called Triple Border (or Triple Frontier) area, a lawless jungle corner 500 miles from the Mariscal base where the borders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet. The area -- which is anchored by three sister cities of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay; Foz do Iguazú, Brazil; and Puerto de Iguazú, Argentina -- is home to a vibrant community of Arab merchants whom U.S. officials have accused of sending millions, perhaps billions, of laundered dollars to Middle East terrorist groups annually.

Though a U.S. Embassy source interviewed last month would not discuss allegations of terrorist financing in the Tri-Border, for people such as Milda Rivarola, a Paraguayan political analyst, the writing is on the wall.  "This is about getting closer to the Triple Border which the U.S. believes is involved in terrorism," said Rivarola.

Others agree. Earlier this month during an interview with Brazilian television, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the Bush administration is likely using its war on terrorism as a pretext to stifle leftist political movements in the region, according to The Washington Times. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials have accused Chavez in recent months of using oil money to fund destabilizing political elements in neighboring countries such as Colombia, a key Washington ally.  

Suspicions also run high in Washington. A recent report by The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Washington-based think tank, says the proximity of the Paraguayan base to Triple Border Area is "particularly unnerving" and "meant to give the U.S. military a more justified presence in the eyes of many would-be critics." Dr. Larry Birns, the group's director, pointed out that, like the Paraguayan case, Pentagon officials in the 1990s denied interest in turning a small Ecuadorian airstrip into a permanent base, which it eventually did. "We are afraid the same will happen in Paraguay," he said.  

A Modern-day Casablanca?

Ciudad del Este, a gritty city of 200,000, is the king of bad reputations. It's also home to a concentration of businesses owned by Arab who immigrated from the Middle East some 40 years ago. Media reports, rumors, and government officials have labeled -- some say unfairly -- Ciudad del Este and its sister cities as a nexus point for global crime networks, from Taiwanese mafia to Colombian drug lords to FARC rebels. The CIA fact book calls the tri-border an "unruly region" that's a "locus of money laundering, smuggling, arms and illegal narcotics trafficking, and fundraising for extremist organizations." 


Digg!

Kelly Hearn is a former UPI staff writer who divides his time between the U.S. and South America. A correspondent to The Christian Science Monitor, his work has appeared in The Nation, The American Prospect and other publications. He is a regular contributor to AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Kelly has it about right
Posted by: John Rice on Nov 4, 2005 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is, according to my family and friends in Bolivia, who reflect the concerns many Bolivians have concerning the likelihood of a US destabilization of their nation as a pretext for further US military/geopolitical ambitions.
The airbase (I believe) seems to be located at 22 degrees, 02', 45.85" south x 60 deg. 37', 12.88" west as seen from a Google satellite mapping image. (others confirm, please?)
It seems Bolivians and others have a reason to be concerned.
This spurious (illegal?) intervention by our country has to stop, but neither branch of the Republocratic party make any efforts to curb this criminality. Bolivia is not the first nation we have exerted our dominance over, nor will it be the last, unless we make up our minds to try something different to stop it. I believe the Neither Party can force those changes upon both parties by implementing a new paradigm of political action.
Regards,,,
John (Neither Party coordinator)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kelly has it about right Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Kelly has it about right Posted by: woodford54
» RE: Kelly has it about right Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: Ralph Nader? Future? Posted by: cyclone
» RE: alph Nader? Future? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: alph Nader? Future? Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Kelly has it about right Posted by: gathaiga
» RE: Kelly has it about right Posted by: Doubtom
Why is it..
Posted by: woodford54 on Nov 4, 2005 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that people let these things happen to them and do nothing to stop them. Is this a worldwide disease. Long ago I gave up on my fellow Americans. We accept and illegal war, invasion of our privacy, poverty, hunger, the earned hatred of the world, religious lunatics running over everyone, and these "silent" invasions of other territories, and all WITH BIG FAT SMILES ON OUR FACES! Why? I wish I knew. I just try to think of it as the EXTREME dummying down of America, but as for Latin America....What's your excuse? Stop this before it gets off the ground or get used to GWB as your dictator. We have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why is it.. Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: Why is it.. Posted by: cyclone
I knew they should have used the open lands in the midwest
Posted by: NDnative on Nov 4, 2005 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I wouldn't welcome turning them into vast prisonlands as the prison problem is already enough of a headache even out here in middle America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Postive alternative
Posted by: Rshaw on Nov 4, 2005 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm always happy with positives alternatives...

Counter-Summit Celebrates Rollback of US Influence


Oh and I figure folks here will be interested in knowing...

COA News just launched a "Media Alert Service"

"Updates containing COA News top stories relating to media criticism, analysis, and debate. Who controls the media? How does media affect us? How can media be used to affect society in a positive way?"

Subscribe or learn more about it here:
http://www.coanews.org/lists/index.php?p=subscribe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some things just never change
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 4, 2005 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see: we went after terrorists (seemingly with justification) in Afghanistan and occupied large tracts of the country – and it so happened that there was a large oil pipeline to be built through that nation. We went into Iraq after terrorists and WMD's (neither of which materialized) – but Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserves in the world. And now we're going into Paraguay to supposedly rout a prime source of terrorists' money – but Paraguay is very close to enormous natural gas fields (and fresh water we can control and sell).

Coincidence? I...don't...think...so. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is the US involved and not the UN
Posted by: eastcoker on Nov 4, 2005 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What business does the US have in South America? I do not like this at all. This seems like a job for the UN not the US. The US is too busy trying to control the world to pay attention to suffering within its own borders. Are things ever going to change? I think not.

This is a fascinating story. I really enjoy reading about globalization. It was very real. Who would ever thought there was a vibrant Arab merchant community at the borders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay? Not I. Of course the Arabs have been trading around the world for eons. Obviously the Americans feel and have felt quite threatened by the Arabs for a long time.

Why can't we just all get along? In the end, this story saddens me. It speaks to the perpetually fallen condition of the human race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some things never change, Pt. II
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 4, 2005 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations and governments, especially the neofascist one we have now, can keep playing the game of Empire! for a little more time, but what happens when new resource caches available for conquest dry up? What then, Kemosabee?

As demand for energy skyrockets with the ascendency of China and India, and the poles melt, and the oceans rise, and coastal land (and major cities) that is home to more than 20% of the world's population disappears, triggering mass migrations like the world has never seen (you think industrial nations have immigration problems now, just wait...), the idea that we could maintain our obscene consumer culture by taking the easy way out of simply stealing others' resources will no longer "hold water" – because it, like everything else by then, will be under it.

(Something to think about: I grew up in the Sacramento Valley, one of the most furtile farming regions in America. My home town, near Sacramento, is 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean – and is only 49 feet above sea level! If the oceans rise as some have predicted, from 50 to 100 feet or more, it's possible that virtually ALL of the Sacramento Valley, and the neighboring San Joaquin Valley, could be either underwater or inundated with sea salt – which would result in tens of thousands of square miles of food production being lost forever. Multiply this by the low-lying croplands of other nations in the world, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we had better do every damn thing we can NOW to slow global warming.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]