quote:

---

Critics fear Chavez plans to arm leftist allies
Venezuela building assault-rifle plant

`Mission' for Latin America suspected
Jun. 19, 2006. 01:00 AM
CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

CARACAS—Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's plans to build the first Kalashnikov factory in South America are stirring fears Venezuela could start arming his leftist allies in the hemisphere with Russian assault rifles.

Chavez denies such ambitions, saying his government bought 100,000 Russian-made AK-103 assault rifles and a licence from Moscow to make Kalashnikovs and ammunition to bolster its defences against "the most powerful empire in history" — the United States.

Some political opponents and critics suspect Chavez, a former paratrooper, has other intentions, such as providing allies like Bolivia and Cuba with arms while forging an anti-Washington military alliance.

"Our president has always had a warlike mentality, but now it appears this mentality is turning into a mission that could easily extend to other parts of Latin America," said William Ojeda, a presidential candidate who hopes to run against Chavez in the December election.

Chavez has said "Venezuelan blood would run" if the United States tried to invade Cuba or Bolivia, though he has not said his government would provide them with weapons.

The Bush administration also is concerned about Chavez's intentions. On Friday, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Venezuela appeared to be in the midst of an "outsized military buildup for a country of that size and the nature of the threats" in the region.

---

quote:

---

Venezuela Distributes Russian Arms, Intends More Purchases

Friday, Jun 16, 2006 Print format
Send by email

By: Venezuelanalysis.com

Venezuela's President Chavez hands a new AK-103 rifle to an officer.
Credit: MCI

Russian Sukhoi-30 fighter jet

Caracas, Venezuela, June 16, 2006—In a ceremony to mark the arrival and disbursement of a first shipment of 30,000 Russian-made AK-103 assault rifles on Wednesday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that these new weapons were merely for the defense of Venezuela. Chavez also confirmed that an agreement had been reached for Venezuela to purchase 24 Russian Sukhoi-30 fighter jets.

Venezuela first announced the purchase of 100,000 Russian Kalashnikov rifles over a year ago. The remaining 70,000 will be delivered later this year. Venezuela’s purchase agreement also includes license for Venezuela to manufacture its own AK-103 rifles, for which it will build a factory.

The rifles are meant to replace the current armament of aging Belgian FAL rifles, which Venezuela had bought over 40 years ago. Chavez handed over the new weapons to officers of the Presidential Honor Guard and gave the old ones to the newly formed military reserve.

During the ceremony, Chavez said, “the world knows we do not have a plan to attack anyone.” “Those who threaten Venezuela with being a threat are the real threat,” added Chavez, referring to the United States, which has repeatedly argued that Venezuela is engaged in an arms race.

The planned purchase of the Sukhoi-30 fighter jets had originally been announced last month, but Chavez confirmed it during the ceremony and specified his government would buy 24 and is considering buying more Russian helicopters. Venezuela has already agreed to buy 44 transport helicopters for the army last year. The additional batch would be attack helicopters for the air force.

“These are assault helicopters, which are ideal for war of resistance,” said Chavez, adding that the purchase would also include, “a state-of-the-art helicopter maintenance center.”

---

Hooray for the Russians. I guess Scott P. thinks that revolutions shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. However, that is just another way of demonstrating your opposition to any revolution. But as the story notes, "the U.S. has refused to honor its contract to maintain the (older) jets and has blocked Venezuela’s efforts to let third parties, such as Israel, to maintain the jets."

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:
Yeah,but dont we have a myriad of precedents that the right-wing elites dont play fair?

---

Salvador Allende refused to handout rifles to government workers and the people when they knew that a military coup was in the skunk works. Allende didn't want bloodshed and citing Francisco Franco's massacre of hundreds of striking miners and socialists in Spain. Allende's body was found with 22 bullet holes in his back. The CIA said he committed suicide. The people pleaded with Allende to arm them.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:
Yeah,but dont we have a myriad of precedents that the right-wing elites dont play fair?

---

Unfortunately, we also have a myriad of precedents that men with assault rifles don't play fair.

There's a marked tendency for weapons to fall into the hands of people who will use them. It's really hard to believe that introducing 100,000 more assault rifles into a region already troubled by violence is a good idea.

It's interesting that, despite the ideological differences between Bush and Chávez, they share a very similar style. Both of them promote a "down-home" public image, both of them invoke religion at every opportunity, and, it would appear, both of them would be welcome at an NRA meeting.

Do they think Chavez has already forgotten the US assisted military coup?

With proper defense, Chavez can ensure that the next time the people change governments, it is through a democratic process.

And we've seen what happened in Cuba, when the US didn't like their style of government.

Perhaps if the US wasn't talking about how Venezuela is no longer a democracy, thus insinuating that it is well in their right to remove Chavez, Venezuela wouldn't feel the need to store up weapons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
It's more of an admission of failure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Much as I admire Chavez, I don't think that providing arms to any country should be seen as a great progressive victory. It's more of an admission of failure.

---

Generalizations are risky, Scott:

Lend-Lease (Wikipedia)

quote:

---

Lend-Lease was a major United States program 1940-1945 which enabled the United States to give Britain, Russia, China and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material (matériel). Unlike the loans of World War I, the transfers were gifts that were not to be repaid...

Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States was not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth, and after June 1941 the Soviet Union...

The list below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from the beginning of it until September 30, 1945.

Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

---

First did you know the US has built a military base just 200 kms from the Bolivian border right by Bolivia's natural gas fields?
Bolivia Worries About New U.S. Base In Paraguay

quote:

---

The installation of a military base on Paraguayan territory, some 200 kilometers from the border of Bolivia, created worry yesterday in the Legislature, to the point that a commission of the Lower House announced an investigation.

Willman Cardozo, Congressman for Tarija, on the border with Paraguay, where is located the largest reserves of Natural Gas in the country, urged the Government to open an investigation and solicit information from the Embassy of Paraguay in La Paz.

The Director of the CBO (Central Workers Union) Luis Choquetijlla, denounced that "the United States has threatened us with a military intervention through friendly countries", with the result of controlling the Natural Gas riches of Bolivia.

Washington has succeeded in establishing a bridgehead in Latin America. In Paraguay close to the Bolivian border and the Triple Borders, they constructed a base that will permit the landing of Galaxy airplanes and heavy armaments. Already 400 Marines have arrived but the base is prepared to house 16,000 military troops.

The Paraguayan Congress approved the entrance of US Troops in this country, with immunity, right of free transit and permanence for its soldiers until December 2006, automatically extendable.

---

Funny how no article about the "rightist" rogue state of Paraguay letting the US build this massive base just in time for Morales' victory.

As far as Venezuela and the US' absurd claim that they don't need to spend the money. Right next door is Colombia which receives Bilions in subsidies from Washington.

Their military spending last year was:

US Dept of State: Colombia

quote:

---

Real spending on defense has increased every year since 2000, but especially so under President Uribe. Colombian spending on defense grew over 30% after inflation, from $2.6 billion in 2001 to more than 3.9 billion in 2005. Projected defense spending for 2006 is $4.48 billion. The security forces number about 350,000 uniformed personnel: 190,000 military and 160,000 police. President Uribe instituted a one-time wealth tax in 2002, which raised over $800 million, with 70% used to increase 2002-2003 defense spending. Actual Ministry of Defense spending in 2004 has increased to 16.3% of the overall national budget, up from 12.9% in 2002, and is the third largest expenditure after social protection programs and education.

Many Colombian military personnel receive training in the United States or in Colombia. The United States provides equipment to the Colombian military and police through the military assistance program, foreign military sales, and the international narcotics control program.

---

So here you have another "rightest" rogue regime spending bilions more on their defence and also housing US miltary bases. Again not a word about their purchases and bases except from the US State Department which loves boasting about what good little toadies those Colombians are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins:

I am with Scott on this one, guns in this situation is not going to improve the position of these countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You haven't commented on the U.S. Do you think they should disarm also?

---

Yes, they should. They should stop manufacturing firearms and they should stop shipping firearms to Colombia.

Epidemia de las armas (Arms Epidemic)

quote:

---

[El dirigente de Clave, la Coalición Latinoamericana para la Prevención de la Violencia Armada, Gabriel] Conte se explayó en torno a la problemática en la región y lamentó que "el mundo no entienda nuestro problema". En ese sentido, dijo que "si se muere un pájaro en algún país de Europa o Asia o alguna vaca se vuelve loca, todos giran su mirada y sus acciones hacia esos lugares; sin embargo en nuestro continente todos los días mueren cientos de personas cada día bajo el fuego de armas baratas, comunes y demasiado populares, y son pocos los que se conmueven y menos los que ayudan".

---

quote:

---

Translation:
The director of Clave ("key"), the Latin American Coalition for the Prevention of Armed Violence, Gabriel Conte then expanded on the regional problem, lamenting that "the world doesn't understand our problem." In this sense, he said "If a bird dies in some country in Europe or Asia, or if a cow turns mad, everyone takes notice and takes action in that country, but in our continent hundreds of people die every day from cheap firearms, which are common and too popular, and there are few who care and even fewer who help."

---

ETA: Here's another story on Clave, reported by
the Venezuelan Ministry of the Interior and Justice.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

quote:

---

The US is not going to invade Bolivia from Paraguay - first off that would send the Brazilian government into a fit.

---

If that's the case why did they just build this base that can hold 16,000 storm troopers (US marines). How come the Brazilians didn't go into a fit when this base was established?

The other point is that the military funding by the progressive countries still remains a fraction of the expense by the rightest rogue regimes in the area.

I'm guessing you have no problems with this fact by your silence on how our corporate media only goes nuts when a "leftist" nation buys arms.

Funny you mention Guatamala. They too had a democratic socialist government that pissed off big bother to the north. The US and their European colonies refused to sell them proper arms which made them easy pickings for a CIA backed invasion causing all the bloodshed you refered to.

Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán

Look by no means am I in support of militarism, but that part of the world has been the big outhouse for US imperialism. I fully understand their feelings of being threatened by Washington every time they choose a different path. But I do not understand the idea that only "leftist" regimes are to surrender completely whenever Uncle Sam shows up at the door.

U.S. Weapons At War 2005: Promoting Freedom or Fuelling Conflict?

quote:

---

"This man’s plan is working."
President Bush of President Uribe in Cartagena, Colombia, November 2004.[52]

For four decades, Colombia has been torn apart by civil war. The three-sided conflict has claimed the lives of at least 200,000 people and displaced another two million.[53] Everyday, five people are forcibly disappeared.[54]

Since the start of Plan Colombia in 2000, the United States has granted billions of dollars in military and police aid, training and weaponry, despite the government’s record of human rights abuses and its support for the vicious paramilitary group United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)...

Between 1994 and 2003, Colombia took delivery of $571.6 million in FMS weaponry and another $84.8 million in commercial exports, for a total of more than $656 million in U.S. weapons.[60]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I do know, however, that when the U.S. arms murderers to kill peasants, trade unionists, etc., I can understand when the victims arm themselves in self-defence.

---

The problem is, it's not the victims arming themselves in self-defence. It's criminals arming themselves.

Here are some stats:

On averge, there are 2,220 violent deaths per year in Colombia as a result of the armed conflict. There are 17,600 firearm deaths per year. More than 80% of these are not related to the armed conflict (at least, not directly).

Firearm deaths subtract 40 months from the average lifespan of Colombian males.

Firearms are responsible for 11% of the total deaths in Colombia since 1979. The figure peaked in 2002, but in 2005 it is estimated at 15%. For males between 20 and 34, they represent between 40 and 50 per cent of all deaths.

Significant reductions in firearm deaths in Colombia's largest cities over the past few years have come as a result of strong municipal gun control measures. (That's not a statistic, but it came from the same report:
La hidra de Colombia)

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rici:

The problem is, it's not the victims arming themselves in self-defence. It's criminals arming themselves.

Here are some stats:

---

Criminals in Colombia? As in corrupt DEA agents, right wing paramilitaries and secret narco police

quote:

---

Though it has barely registered in the U.S. press, a national scandal is currently unfolding in Colombia, where a jailed high official of the Administrative Department for Security (DAS, in its Spanish initials) has been speaking freely with journalists about the extensive collaboration between the secret police agency and right-wing paramilitary groups.

Rafael García lost his post as DAS’ information technology chief after being charged with taking bribes from rightwing paramilitaries and narcos (often, one and the same). He now claims that DAS has been working for years, at least since Uribe’s 2002 election, in conjunction with the paras and their narco allies, sharing documents and intelligence to help kill and intimidate activists and unionists, help powerful drug traffickers avoid prosecution and murder informants.

---

I hope you don't think I'm an Uribe supporter. You wouldn't be confusing me with someone else, would you?

Be that as it may, the fact is that Latin America is suffering from an epidemic of deaths by firearms, as Clave says. Most of them are not part of armed political conflict. Most of the victims are not rich.

There are simply too many guns in Latin America, and too many people prepared to use them. Latin America's firearm mortality rate is twice Africa's. Latin America accounts for 40% of the world's total firearm deaths. (Source: Clave).

And, yet. "...there are few who care and even fewer who help."

Edited to put in a different picture of the pals, since the first one seems to be protected.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

What's beyond doubt is that both Colombia and Venezuela have much higher rates of firearm deaths than most countries in the world, and furthermore the general level of violence is a major point of discontent in both countries. (In Colombia, Uribe is so popular partly because there has been a noticeable decline in armed violence during his government, although I don't think he should be able to take as much credit for it as he does, while in Venezuela Chávez is not generally blamed for the high level of armed violence, although I think he has done less to combat it than he should have.)

I agree with you that "paramilitaries, corruption, death squads, etc." are a huge problem, in Colombia and elsewhere, and Uribe and his political allies have some very questionable relationships with these themes.

But that doesn't alter the death toll. Half a million Colombians have been killed by firearms since 1988, and only 10% of those deaths are attributable to paramilitaries ("left" or "right") and death squads. Most of them are just common crimes.

Half a million Colombians. That's an awful lot of people. Had they died from AIDS, or mad cow disease, or bird flu, medical resources would be flowing to Colombia. Had they been massacred by the government or by rebel forces, people would be crying genocide and considering intervention.

But they weren't. They were just poor Colombians killed by violent criminals.

So who cares? Do you?

The US regularly uses these scares to provide justification for their interventions. If Chavez was starting up nuclear reactors, they'd go berserk.

People might remember the similar Reaganite complaints about Grenada building an airfield able to take landing by large planes. The spokespeople for the US Administration insisted the field could only have aggressive military use.

After the US overthrew the Coard group then running Grenada, the new pro-US government used the airport to enable large tourist planes to land. The economy took off.

Rici is right, though, that introducing guns at random would be a bad thing. If Chavez plans to sell the guns to whoever has money, they will end up in the hands of drug gangs.

This is how I feel, and very strongly, if the US decides to back a brutal dictatorship arming rebels is not going to bring any change, it will make things worse in the short term, giving false legitimacy to the slaughters and after the conflict is over the country will be left militarised, violent, historical scaring, an autrocious military, and plenty of guns. In Guatemala security has not improved very much since the peace accords, a lot of the criminals of the genocide are still free, and the 'left' is in disaray. Little was accomplished.

I fully recognize that this is very easy for someone to say in safe Canada, its not my family being targetted, not my brother who was killed for joining a protest, and not my village burned. I have no feelings of insecurity and fear of oppression living where I am, and because of that its very hallow to say someone should not take up arms to fight. But guns is not what Latin America needs, rici has provided a couple of reasons why: most importantly that there are already TOO many guns in many of the countries and that they aren't preventing any sort of American intervention but rather they are supporting crime.

Chavez's efforts to buy weapons I do not think has much to do about 'protecting the revolution' as it does with increasing ties to other countries in the world (making new friends) and playing a stage game with the US over regional power and influence. But I return to my first comment, the US is not going to be able to play the 1970s right now looking at the political map because countries like Brazil and Argentina are simply not interested. Not just uninterested would be very much opposed to overt American actions in the region, overt actions which include sending thousands of marines into Bolivia.

quote:

---

And another tried to suggest that more guns in Guatemala would have saved them from the brutal military dictatorship. They wouldn't have, and the pressence of guerillas - though their cause was just - did not protect the people. In the Memory of Silence produced by the truth commission, the guerrillas were blamed for promising to protect villages, getting them involved in the conflict and later being unable to protect them

---

Actually my suggestion was that if the Arbenz government would have been able to purchase proper weapons for their armed forces (the US and Europeans banned all sales to this democratically elected government) there would have been no repression!

Jeff House and Rici are right, if these arms are to be used for legitimate government concerns about US backed coups they should use all means to defend themselves.

BTW, the new US base in Paraguay has everything to do with military might and nothing to do with providing assistance to Paraguay. If US military involvement was solely for economic assistance than Colombia would be a Latin paradise on earth - not Latin America's most dangerous country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins:
The news flash is that the US armed side is going to have the upper hand with armed fighting, only in two cases has that proven different - Cuba and Nicaragua (though even that was not secured by more weapons). Some construed my comments earlier to suggest that I am not critical of the US and weapons flowing in from their side - that was a very ill informed suggestion. And another tried to suggest that more guns in Guatemala would have saved them from the brutal military dictatorship. They wouldn't have, and the pressence of guerillas - though their cause was just - did not protect the people. In the Memory of Silence produced by the truth commission, the guerrillas were blamed for promising to protect villages, getting them involved in the conflict and later being unable to protect them.

---

With all due respect, this is what the fascists would like everyone they intend on oppressing to believe - that there can be nothing won by provoking their bloody wrath, and that any and all revolts will be put down successfully. Yes, the Cuban's did turn tables on not only Batista's army and secret police, but a U.S.-led invasion force as well. And a nation of 5 million in Nicaragua grew weary of war with a country 60 times its size. The Contras, armed to the eye teeth by the U.S., should have beaten the Sandinistas handily but instead, were chased to hell and back for their hides by the more dedicated and more willful Sandinistas who were fighting for their freedom. In the end, the Contras also laid down their arms and regretted it later. Apparently they didn't get what they bargained for either.

The men and women volunteers of the Afghani PDPA were abandoned by the Soviets in early 1989. The PDPA fended off the most vicious and well-armed mercenaries during that time and defeated the mujihadeen at Jalalabad before rockets rained down on Kabul and major cities. The PDPA volunteer army held out against western funded mujihadeen factions pouring in and out of Afghanistan until 1992.

And I think we should also remember Vietnam, a ten thousand day war between the best equipped, highest tech militaries in the world and the lowest tech guerilla warfare taught to NVA by Maoist revolutionaries. By what I understand, the Kalashnikov was an effective weapon for the Vietnamese peasants as well. They found out that the rifle could be stashed in muddy river water for weeks on end and still fire when needed.

I think the world has had its fill of Mi Lai and El Mozote massacres. I have a difficult time shooting my hunting rifle at game animals for some reason nowadays. But I would be the first shoot the legs off some of those bastards who've killed women and children without batting an eyelash themselves. I really believe I could.

[ 21 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Here's a comparison with other Latin American countries:

Brazil: $13.2 billion, regular defense budget.

Colombia: $6.3 billion, includes regular defense budget, other military spending, costs of police agencies and U.S. military aid.

Chile: $3.8 billion , includes defense budget, additional military funding and costs for national police.

Mexico: $3.1 billion , defense budget.

Argentina: $1.7 billion , defense budget.

Venezuela: $1.4 billion, regular defense budget. Does not include other defense deals paid from outside the budget.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:

Again, funny how a new US base magically pops up as soon as a leftie gets elected in a neighbouring country (shades of Honduras and El Salvador).[/qb]

---

Certainly the US will do everything it can do destablize Bolivia, for the simple reason that it is poor and defenceless. They can't really do much about Chavez except try and isolate him.
They could try and provoke a civil war in Bolivia. It worked before.

[ 21 June 2006: Message edited by: guy cybershy ]

The US, of course, denies that they are doing anything other than training exercises there. In the end, it doesn't matter, because no-one is going to believe their denials, and inculcating fear of a possible US intervention is the key to US strategy, as it was to British strategy a century ago. (Much cheaper than actual armed interventions.)

Guatemala is actually a classic example. The actual "invasion" was a rag-tag underequipped army of a few hundred mercenaries, and Guatemala could easily have defeated them. The government chose not to do so, and then the Guatemalan army started surrending. They weren't afraid of the invaders, who were pathetic. They were afraid that the US would do something much more drastic if the invaders were routed.

I once wrote a comparative paper on the Cuban revolution and the Chilean tragedy. My professor pointed out that I missed the most obvious reason for Allende's downfall, that the military rebelled against him, which was facilitated by the constitutional general Schneider being assassinated?