Militarization of Central America and the Caribbean: The U.S. Military Moves Into Costa Rica

source

Nestled between Panama to its south and Nicaragua to its north, Costa Rica is a Central American nation roughly the size of Rhode Island.

If another nation were to send Rhode Island a force of 7,000 troops, 200 helicopters, and 46 warships in an effort to eradicate drug trafficking, it is doubtful that the residents of Rhode Island would consider this offer "on-the-level." Such a massive military force could hardly be efficiently used to combat drug cartels. The only logical conclusion is that the nation whose troops now are occupying this other country had another agenda in mind that it didn't want to share.

early July, by a vote of 31 to 8, the Costa Rican Congress approved the U.S. bringing into their nation the same military force described above, justified with the same dubious "war on drugs" rationale. According to the agreement, the military forces are supposed to leave Costa Rica by the end of 2010. This begs the question, however, if such an over the top display of military muscle is needed now to combat the drug cartels, what will be done in the next few months to make their presence unnecessary? The history of such U.S. military deployments around the world suggests a more credible outcome than what the agreement states. Once the U.S. moves such massive forces into a country, they rarely move them out.

When push comes to shove, the political machinery in Costa Rica is subservient to U.S. government and corporate interests. Nevertheless, there are many in Costa Rica who are declaring that the agreement is a violation of their national sovereignty and is unconstitutional. (In 1948 Costa Rica abolished its army, which was sanctioned in its constitution.) Legislator Luis Fishman has vowed to challenge the decision of the Congress in the courts.

key statement:
"Once the U.S. moves such massive forces into a country, they rarely move them out."

if they go by their agreement, they've got less than 5 months. seems like an unnecessary waste of resources, imo.

once again the American Corporate War Machine mobilizes abroad for questionable activities- the three most used reasons being

• the War on Drugs
  
• the War on Terror
  
• the control of Nuclear Armaments

the government is demonstrating an ever-decreasing ability to control its self in its efforts to control other sovereign nations - something that seems to defy the very core of what America was founded upon - freedom. i guess that means America's freedom at the expense of other countries' global freedom.

it's atrocious hypocrisy, in my view.

Good post, OP. I also find it curious that hardly a peep out of mainstream media about this "deployment". WTF???

I'm not buying "drugs" as the excuse. Costa Rica is strategic GOLD. Wouldn't surprise me If this is strategic posturing for future pentagon operations having nothing to do with drugs whatsoever.

Nestled between Panama to its south and Nicaragua to its north, Costa Rica is a Central American nation roughly the size of Rhode Island.

Costa Rica is about 20k square miles and Rhode Island about 1.5k square miles.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by METACOMET]

Originally posted by METACOMET
I'm not buying "drugs" as the excuse. Costa Rica is strategic GOLD. Wouldn't surprise me If this is strategic posturing for future pentagon operations having nothing to do with drugs whatsoever.

Nestled between Panama to its south and Nicaragua to its north, Costa Rica is a Central American nation roughly the size of Rhode Island.

Costa Rica is about 20k square miles and Rhode Island about 1.5k square miles.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by METACOMET]

thanks for the fact-check!
i didn't even think to check on that.

i don't think it is drugs, either - just like terror is about oil, then drugs is about some other sort of material wealth/resource.

the article seems to indicate that it is about corporate dominance. i can believe that very easily.

reply to post by Rockerchic4God


that was my first thought!

why didn't we hear about this?

i have been realizing that it's up to me to check on the laws they're making because supposedly they are my representatives. i know they are not representing the majority - they couldn't be or this nation wouldn't be such a mess. i know we the people have a good deal of common sense since we are the common folk. they wouldn't call us that for nothing.

if we are going to take back our rightful say in the affairs of our republic, then we have to start paying attention, first of all. i know i do!

Location, Location, Location

US can control both sides of the isthmus from there, ie sea trade to and from both Bolivia and Venezuela. Only with US permission will China, Russia, or Iran be able to engage in trade with central and South America.

Think UN Security Council Resolution 1929 www.un.org...
Specifically

“8. Decides that all States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, or items as determined by the Security Council or the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006) (“the Committee”), decides further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel;
. . .
“14. Calls upon all States to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, all cargo to and from Iran, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 3, 4 or 7 of resolution 1737 (2006), paragraph 5 of resolution 1747 (2007), paragraph 8 of resolution 1803 (2008) or paragraphs 8 or 9 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;



“15. Notes that States, consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea, may request inspections of vessels on the high seas with the consent of the flag State, and calls upon all States to cooperate in such inspections if there is information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the vessel is carrying items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 3, 4 or 7 of resolution 1737 (2006), paragraph 5 of resolution 1747 (2007), paragraph 8 of resolution 1803 (2008) or paragraphs 8 or 9 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;



“16. Decides to authorize all States to, and that all States shall, seize and dispose of (such as through destruction, rendering inoperable, storage or transferring to a State other than the originating or destination States for disposal) items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 3, 4 or 7 of resolution 1737 (2006), paragraph 5 of resolution 1747 (2007), paragraph 8 of resolution 1803 (2008) or paragraphs 8 or 9 of this resolution that are identified in inspections pursuant to paragraphs 14 or 15 of this resolution, in a manner that is not inconsistent with their obligations under applicable Security Council resolutions, including resolution 1540 (2004), as well as any obligations of parties to the NPT, and decides further that all States shall cooperate in such efforts;

In other words, the US is in position to stop, search, seize, and destroy any cargo from any country by merely claiming they had "credible intelligence" about third parties attempting to get to Iran a spare part for an anti-aircraft artillery system.

Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, China, and Russia at the least are being intimidated. While Iran's ability to defend against air or sea attack are being eroded. Think 10 years of such sanctions against Iraq for softening up their defenses before US led invasion.

Anyone seen this yet....??





www.msnbc.msn.com...

Give me a break.

Did anyone happen to notice this guys biography?

Mark Vorpahl is a union steward as well as an anti-war and Latin American Solidarity activist.

Where are the sources for all of the things he is claiming? Where is the proof? What experience or education does his have that allows him to make the claims that he made?

Costa Rica has been advocating for a larger American presence down there since we started to pull out of the other bases in the area. They want to do more to stop the flow of drugs, but they can't with what they have. Allowing the US down there to do so allows their government to take part of the credit for taking a stand and trying to get the cartels out of their country.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Originally posted by pthena
US can control both sides of the isthmus from there, ie sea trade to and from both Bolivia and Venezuela. Only with US permission will China, Russia, or Iran be able to engage in trade with central and South America.

China currently owns the Panama Canal, so how exactly are we going to prevent them from controlling it from Costa Rica?

reply to post by COOL HAND

China currently owns the Panama Canal, so how exactly are we going to prevent them from controlling it from Costa Rica?

How? Military intimidation. Simple answer.

I gather (maybe outdated, 2005), Hutchison Whampoa, originally a Hong Kong outfit, now Chinese, holds the lease for ports on both sides of the canal.

www.atimes.com...
Initial plans for the exercises targeted the Yellow Sea between China and the Korean Peninsula and promised the intimidating presence of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington. The reports aroused a barrage of official criticism and popular anger inside China. In response, the expected location began to drift eastward, first toward the south of the peninsula and now into the oceans between the east coast of Korea and Japan.

The most recent report is that the US will, with Solomonic wisdom, split the difference in a dual-sea exercise, with the George Washington and three destroyers in the east and a face-saving smaller exercise in the west.

China, which as recently as two weeks ago looked to be facing an intransigent united front of the US, South Korea and Japan, received an unexpected gift thanks to this American muddling: an alliance showing distinct signs of dismay, demoralization and division.

The planned overwhelming intimidation is somewhat fizzling it seems, but it was supposed to be an awesome show of force right off China's coast.

But why ask me any questions anyway? If you casually brush off a "union steward as well as an anti-war and Latin American Solidarity activist" as being less than credible, no need to pay attention to one without even that much of a resume.

Scott Horton Interviews Joseph Shansky
antiwar.com...
Joseph Shansky, contributor to Counterpunch, UpsideDownWorld and Democracy Now! en Español, discusses the "invited" invasion of Costa Rica by the U.S.. Navy and Marine Corps, the drug war excuse, Costa Rica’s pacifist constitution which forbids such things, the notable lack of information about the move, the widespread disapproval of the new U.S. presence among the population, the realignment across Central and South America away from U.S. power and other reasons to anticipate a new era of attempted U.S. intervention there, the coup in Honduras last year and the human rights violations of the victors.

10:33 interview

Originally posted by pthena
China, which as recently as two weeks ago looked to be facing an intransigent united front of the US, South Korea and Japan, received an unexpected gift thanks to this American muddling: an alliance showing distinct signs of dismay, demoralization and division.

How does this show the alliance is falling apart? The US moved things around to defuse the situation. China could make things very interesting close to their shores, but they lack the ability to project military power over long distances.

The planned overwhelming intimidation is somewhat fizzling it seems, but it was supposed to be an awesome show of force right off China's coast.

One aircraft carrier and a couple of smaller ships is not an awesome show of force. China could easily handle that with acceptable losses.

But why ask me any questions anyway? If you casually brush off a "union steward as well as an anti-war and Latin American Solidarity activist" as being less than credible, no need to pay attention to one without even that much of a resume.

I don't "casually brush him off" I just happen to know more about the situation than it appears he does. You are the one trying to show his opinions as something of value. I was just curious as to why anyone would assume that this person knows what he is talking about. Perhaps if he provided some sources or further info I would not be so hasty in my judgement?

Seems the Chinese are trying to become major players in the drug trade.

Zhenli Ye Gon (traditional Chinese: 葉真理;[1] born January 31, 1963, Shanghai, People's Republic of China[2]) is a Mexican businessman of Chinese origin accused of trafficking pseudoephedrine or ephedrine precursor chemicals into Mexico from Asia. He is the legal representative of Unimed Pharm Chem México. From 2002-2004, Unimed had been legally authorized by the Mexican government to import thousands of metric tons of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products into Mexico, as a part of its vast importation business. After this authorization ended on July 1, 2005, the Mexican government alleges that Mr. Ye Gon and certain of his employees violated its laws by continuing to import four unauthorized containers of pseudoephedrine or ephedrine precursor chemicals into Mexico in late 2005 and 2006. In July of 2007, the U.S. government filed an indictment charging that these same actions were part of a conspiracy to aid and abet the importation of methamphetamine into the United States. Two years later, the U.S. case was dismissed with prejudice by The United States District Court for the District of Columbia in August of 2009.

He is claimed to be a member of the Sinaloa Cartel, a charge that Mr. Ye Gon, who has no previous criminal record, has denied. He became a citizen of Mexico in 2002

The fortune, found by the police on March 15, 2007 at his residence at Lomas de Chapultepec in Mexico City included the following:

207 million U.S. dollars
18 million Mexican pesos
200,000 euros
113,000 Hong Kong dollars
11 centenarios (Mexican gold bullion coins made of 1.20565 oz t (37.5 g) of pure gold[13])
A great amount of jewels, of unknown value
Confiscated along with the money were also:

Two Mexican-style dwellings of approximately 20 million pesos
1 lab in construction of unknown value
7 vehicles
Nine persons were arrested, four of them of Asian origin.[14]

Two Mexican Federal agents who were involved in the arrests at the Zhenli Ye Gon mansion were found dead in the southern Mexican state of Guerrero, as reported on August 2, 2007
:

A picture of some of the money at his house.



en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by COOL HAND
I don't "casually brush him off" I just happen to know more about the situation than it appears he does.

well, then, by all means, please fill us in.


obviously this is something we are concerned about, or at the very least, rather interested in following.

Did anyone happen to notice this guys biography?

did you happen to google his name to see what else he's done or written? and who he is affiliated with, that is, who publishes his articles?

I was just curious as to why anyone would assume that this person knows what he is talking about. Perhaps if he provided some sources or further info I would not be so hasty in my judgement?

i don't assume anyone knows what they are talking about, at any give time - including myself.


however, there are reasons i felt this was accurate and would be worthy of a thread here at ATS.
obviously my reasons were not too far off-base, since another member posted a link to an article talking about the very same thing.

what exactly in the article do you find to be inaccurate? please be more specific.

i know you said this:

Costa Rica has been advocating for a larger American presence down there since we started to pull out of the other bases in the area. They want to do more to stop the flow of drugs, but they can't with what they have. Allowing the US down there to do so allows their government to take part of the credit for taking a stand and trying to get the cartels out of their country.

but that's perhaps only the government's perspective - the people have an altogether different idea of what they want. and it IS a democracy, right?
and it appears, also, that this kind of thing is either not part of their constitution or else not allowed, either explicitly or tacitly.

this is the link at the end of the article - i don't know if you saw it or clicked on it, but it reveals a lot about the situation. so does googling the author's name.

[edit on 7/24/2010 by queenannie38]

Originally posted by pthena
Location, Location, Location

US can control both sides of the isthmus from there, ie sea trade to and from both Bolivia and Venezuela. Only with US permission will China, Russia, or Iran be able to engage in trade with central and South America.

Think UN Security Council Resolution 1929 www.un.org...

ah!
yes, i see, now.
i didn't even think about the canal and i sure didn't think about Iran.
although i should have!

that's like the *default* reason for anything military right now, isn't it?


thank you

Someone also started this thread on this subject a while back in case you're interested in reading the comments there. Peace.

reply to post by freetree64


no, i hadn't. thank you.
trouble brewing all over, it seems.
and as always, there is some sort of US involvement.

Venezuela has quite the challenge when it comes to defending their inland border, i'm sure, because South America is in large part a jungle, politically speaking, too - especially when it comes to Colombia!

their available economic resources can't be all that much, with a individual GDP of around $12 to $13 grand - they rank 84th in the world in that regard. even though there is a lot of natural resources in the country, it seems they've had too much difficulty of various sorts to really have the chance to capitalize on those kinds of assets.

the American continents, south of our southern border have been the poorest in the world ever since they came into being, although i think Venezuela is better off than most of it's neighbors.

and so the issue addressed by the article is just another obstacle in their way to prosperity and peace.

if i thought the US military was going for the right reasons, the declared reasons, and if it was possible that they might do some good when it comes to corruption and the drug trade, i might be happy about it, thinking we were really going to help our southern neighbors.

but alas, from the track record of the US in both corruption and drugs, i have to say i have little hope, if any at all, that our presence and involvement could be of benefit to those countries.

it is a damn shame.

reply to post by pthena


If this is the reason, why are they leaving at the end of the year? They expect that the Venezuela-Iran problems will be solved by then?

Originally posted by queenannie38
did you happen to google his name to see what else he's done or written? and who he is affiliated with, that is, who publishes his articles?

Yep, couldn't find anything else he has written.

what exactly in the article do you find to be inaccurate? please be more specific.

I question the numbers he quoted for how many people and how much equipment the US is supposed to be sending down there. Where did that information come from? How are we supposed to be able to verify it. I can't find a single source that quotes those numbers.

this is the link at the end of the article - i don't know if you saw it or clicked on it, but it reveals a lot about the situation. so does googling the author's name.

I did look at it, and then immediatly brushed it off. You can't expect me to believe that is an objective site full of accurate and truthful information. They don't even know the current name of the school, or what the currently cirruculum is.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
I question the numbers he quoted for how many people and how much equipment the US is supposed to be sending down there. Where did that information come from? How are we supposed to be able to verify it. I can't find a single source that quotes those numbers.

there is a link to another ATS thread that "quotes" those same numbers, right here in THIS thread!


i'm not going to tell you where the link is, because you're not even checking on this stuff yourself; at least not very thoroughly, that is - and i'm not going to do it for you.

i will say, though, that the name of the thread here at ATS uses those figures in its title - easy enough to find.


however, that other thread has a video of a newscast, in the OP, and so i'm posting it here: