South America on the map of "future wars"

It is reported in the mainstream media that Brazil has resumed negotiations with the United States for the use of the Alcântara Base (MA). According to O Globo (June 03) and Folha de São Paulo (June 04), the information was confirmed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aloysio Nunes, in an interview with journalists in Washington.

For those who don't remember, it's worth recalling that an agreement to cede the base to the United States was underway in 2002, at the end of Fernando Henrique Cardoso's government. The agreement at that time did not go forward because the National Congress rejected it due to its scandalous terms. The text at the time allowed the US not only to use the base for military equipment and space technology (satellites, etc.), but also guaranteed absolute secrecy regarding the equipment and activities developed there. The Lula government, which began in 2003, definitively buried US expectations of resuming negotiations for the use of the base. It was also in 2003 that an explosion, which left 21 dead and completely destroyed the equipment, brought an end to years of work by Brazilian researchers. Little is known about the causes of this disaster, but when one considers the magnitude of the loss for Brazilian science (and I'm not talking about the equipment, which can be rebuilt, but about the professionals the country lost, possessors of invaluable technical and scientific knowledge), one cannot help but think of sabotage.

The 2016 coup d'état, which placed a group linked to the interests of high finance and international oligopolies in charge of the country, revived the old, sell-out proposal. In their speeches, the high-ranking officials in charge of the negotiations claim they will seek "better terms" for the agreement, aiming for some kind of technology transfer. However, what we have, objectively, is a negotiation process for the cession of a strategic point of national territory to US military control. This, added to the dismantling of Petrobras and Eletrobras, the sale of land to foreigners, the opening of public and pension funds to private (and international) banking capital, and the termination of military cooperation within UNASUR, represents Brazil's unrestricted realignment with the neoliberal guidelines emanating from financial institutions and the military and international doctrine of the United States of America. The two alignments are complementary, not merely coincidental.

Simultaneously, Juan Manuel Santos, president of Colombia, announces the country's negotiations to join NATO, bringing to Latin America, a region that historically seeks to establish itself as a territory of peace, an organization whose history is marked by aggression, threats, and invasions of countries that do not align with the "consensus" emanating from Washington and its allies.

The head of the US Southern Command, Kurt Tidd, has stated on every occasion he has had the opportunity to speak that: 1) "The most complex challenges of the coming years will come from South America"; 2) Russia and China have been increasing their influence in Latin America and the Caribbean, and it is necessary to develop effective strategies to regain US hegemony in the region; 3) the greatest danger, in terms of security, comes from drug trafficking and organized crime; and 4) it is necessary to coordinate with the OAS countries an immediate solution to the Venezuelan "crisis".

All these points listed by the highest-ranking official responsible for "monitoring" South America in political and military terms provide us with lines of articulation for the information that arrives deliberately disconnected through the corporate media.

Colombia's rapprochement with NATO occurs at the same time that Brazil, under a coup d'état, redirects its international relations towards an unrestricted alignment (in the style of the sell-outs of the Cold War era) with the US. At the same time, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Peru, and Paraguay (another victim of a coup d'état) paralyze their participation in UNASUR, an entity that had been enabling military coordination among South American countries.

Not coincidentally, these six countries also refuse to recognize the election results in Venezuela (adding to the pressure exerted by the US since before the elections) and are pressuring the OAS to interfere in the Venezuelan process, following the already declared intentions of the US State Department to interfere in the country's politics. Since the destabilization efforts, through agitators and sabotage, did not have the expected success, the statements by the aforementioned Admiral Kurt Tidd in defense of "a plan for direct intervention in Venezuela employing a multinational force led by Colombia and logistically advised and monitored by the Southern Command" reveal that the resumption of US "leadership" in the region will be achieved at any cost. The militarization of the continent is progressing rapidly, from the "war on drugs" (which we discussed in a previous article), which will continue to serve as a gateway for dubious military cooperation and the establishment of US bases, to the most recent facet of US action: guaranteeing constitutional order, "pacifying conflicts," and "cooperating" on strategic issues such as budget, judicial bodies, diplomacy, and technology.

Kurt Tidd is right. The conflicts of the near future will not resemble the wars of the past. The conflicts of the future involve information warfare, technology, and various methods of manipulating public opinion. Recent events in Brazil and neighboring countries are already the "future."