Latin America, for all its third world history, and related discounted importance in the international community hierarchy, is emerging in a big way onto the global scene in terms of strategic importance. Its collective resources, populations, military, and raw economic might and forward looking potential, immense.
China sees it. Russia sees it. And the U.S. "kind of" sees it.
China wants it (strategic positioning). Russia wants it. The U.S. is "thinking" about it.
It's time to step up U.S. recognition and desire, and more importantly – action, to seize it too. The cost for not doing so being a degraded national security situation.
With Latin America's current, in general, leftist leanings, it becomes a significant challenge for the U.S. to get the strategic toehold it needs there to counter global communist powers from getting their own. But as the saying goes, the man upstairs helps those who help themselves. Meaning, aggressive pro-active action should be taken - now.
The two dominators in this emergence of Latin America as "strategically significant" are Venezuela and Brazil. Many may think Argentina belongs on this lofty perch, having perennially vied with Brazil for regional power, but it has recently in the last few years acquiesced and conceded that rivalry to Brazil.
Venezuela has already made it quite clear where its alignment is. Brazil is still essentially non-committed, but disturbingly beginning to drift in a Venezuelan direction. It would be wonderful if the offset dominator to Venezuela, Brazil, was a U.S. clone. Unfortunately, it's not. Brazil is not (currently) the perfect solution but it is head and shoulders the better of the two choices. The situation as some may say, is certainly not ideal. Rather, it is what it is. The U.S. must accept the cards it's been dealt and choose one, and then make the best of it, having no choice but to.
So considering the U.S. has no choice and "must" align with a dominant Latin American power from a holistic Latin America (U.S.) national security and positioning aspect, the choice therefore is perfectly clear. Put your money (bet) on Brazil, and invest the necessary and significant political, military and economic capital to make it better and make it work - to turn flashing yellow to green.
This article makes the case that Venezuela is creating an increasing threat to the U.S. both by its own actions but too even more disturbing, acting as the key access point, gatekeeper and/or door opener for China and a resurgent Russia to infiltrate and dominate Latin America. Both countries are aggressively exploiting this open door, and thus increasing the threat to U.S. national security.
Thus the need for the U.S. to wake up and counter that powerful inertia by aligning with a Latin America power player who may not necessarily be totally warm to the U.S., but who, unlike Venezuela, practices some if not a much larger degree of sensibility in terms of "generally" thinking "Country, not President", first. The emerging potential challenge to civilian rule in Brazil vis-à-vis rise of the military, certainly disconcerting and why action to help stem that possibility, being critical now. In effect, a generally rational country "at the moment", one who with prudent and responsible actions, the U.S. can negotiate and partner with towards a goal of win-win results.
The strategic focus then is on Brazil. Again, this will be no easy feat navigating the current ideological and attitude differences between the U.S. and Brazil, particularly Brazil towards the U.S.. But with a newfound approach to all countries in terms of understanding and factoring how they really think and behave, and therefore understanding that Brazil is not the U.S. as the Analyst made the similar case in the previous article on Pakistan, a respectful and results driven dialogue can be established for the common good.
The U.S. is currently strong in Columbia and to a degree militarily in Paraguay, the latter relationship rubbing Brazil the wrong way but still pivotal anchor points from which the U.S. can strengthen strategic Latin American positioning by now wooing the key strategic blocking piece in the triad - Brazil.
Before this article gets into the filing of divorce papers on Venezuela and notarizing the marriage license with Brazil, clearly a marriage of (difficult and challenging) convenience, certainly not love or romance, it seems opportune to preview a technology need to help with just this kind of national security strategic decision making.
National Security Monitoring Technology:
A real time, robust video "Display of U.S. National Security". One which obviates and makes obsolete those daily, burdensome, paper laden data dump briefings by the National Security Advisor to the President. Does it exist? Maybe, maybe not.
If it doesn't exist, it should. If it does, this Analyst would suggest it might look something like this. A full wall size video screen showing the entire globe, with each country either lighted green, yellow or red. Call it the National Security (System) Screen (NSS). The presentation themed/displayed in two ways:
1) A Global "Map" by Country - An electoral voting red/blue state map type look, but uniquely possessing comprehensive and robust national security decision making information behind each country and region.
Brock Novak is a freelance Military and Geo-Political Analyst. He is credited with coining the contextual term "COMMULISM" (COMMUnism fueled by capitaLISM), the "Commulism Series", and creating the "Commulism Response Framework" (CRF).
Among others, his credits further extend to coining and defining the 21st century concepts of "Fusion Warfare" and "Fission Threat Environment", as well as the contextual terms "Pandanomics", "Benevolent Terrorism", "Phased and Jammed Democracy".
Coming: The launch of COMMULISM.COM - A website dedicated to increasing the U.S. government and public awareness of this, the greatest near and long term threat to U.S. economic and national security.
As for the opposition.....it is gaining strength behind student activists who demand the country pursue and embrace democratic principles. Whether it has the substance in numbers at the voting booth to defeat the Referendum remains uncertain. Not likely "if" the poor get out to vote in the numbers that Chavez craves. Yes, if they don't.
2) Analyst Article section on "what if" Referendum loss:
What if Chavez loses "THIS" Referendum?
If history as outlined above is an indicator, and if in fact Chavez is following Bolivar's lead, one can argue he intends to remain President indefinitely whether achieving that through "legitimate?" Constitutional reform with another Referendum(s) or as last resort, follow again in Bolivar's precedent noted above, Dictatorship.
Remember, he still would have six years left in his term, meaning 5 more potential Referendums to get it right, each time learning (lessons learned) from the last. Odds are given his sheer determination to win, at some point he will get it right (from his perspective).
And if he fails 6 times by Referendum, odds are too that he won't fail at his first try at Dictator in 2013.
In other words, if he loses the "2007" Referendum, it unfortunately "ain't" over, by no means. The Venezuelan and global community should save the celebrations, as it's not the end of Chavez' march toward permanent power.
Rather, it's just the beginning.
3) Analyst Article Note Regarding Putin and "what if" a Venezuelan Referendum Loss:
The tactic can now be observed firsthand by watching the Chavez plan unfold, with Chavez taking the flak and clearing the way for Putin to follow with an even grander and from a U.S. national security perspective, more troubling scheme of his own. If Chavez fails, there are certainly lessons to be learned, which will help Putin (and Chavez) too.
by
Brock Novak (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 7:45:58 AM
People have Rights; govts are created to protect our Rights
governments and states come and go, adopted and tossed aside as they serve the People's will, to whom they belong. The Democrats and the Republicans have long supported funding and training dictators and death squads, incl. Hussein, in order to secure access to resources and markets, and as a result the US has become the most hated nation on the planet, with the majority of the world's people labeling it the greatest threat to peace. If they had instead been building bonds with the People of these nations, we would have deep friendships and alliances. Instead, as Novak points out here, now China and Russia are doing that, and this will be of no benefit to the US. It is not too late to change the world's opinions, but we will have to turn ALL the Republocrats out of power, and put people in office who will honor their oath to defend the Constitution, and who will put the People's interests first, not elite business interests.
Also, this article seems to have been written before the Venezuelan vote on the referendum, which Chavez just lost and did not contest; why publish this article the day after, without updating it?
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 415 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments)
on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 12:40:27 PM
Your personal political and "other issues" are your own. Not for me to comment.
As respects your final questions to me, specifically:
"Also, this article seems to have been written before the Venezuelan vote on the referendum, which Chavez just lost and did not contest; why publish this article the day after, without updating it?"
1. Your first excerpted question: Why publish this article the day "after"? (I believe based on your para intro, you meant to say "before", which then would make your question sensible).
BN Answer: (Really) Read the article, rather than use the comment space for convenient personal politicizing. The answer is quite clear.
2. Your second excerpted question: "Why publish.......without updating it?"
BN Answer: Read "Update" Comment #1 - just before your Comment #2.
3. An added BN bonus: Analyst view to your statement on "Chavez not contesting."
BN Response: Read Comment #1. He plans on doing this again, and again....and again til successful. Unless you're saying he's "not" politically saavy, any politician with half a brain who plans on repetitive election attempts would graciously take the high road rather than the low road following defeat. Just as Chavez did.
Taking the high road in defeat ingratiates oneself to the voting public, while the low road distances oneself from the voting public, i.e. High road - more future votes. Low road - lost/less future votes.
In this case, he hopes taking the high road in defeat now, gets him dividend extra votes (needs just 2% more - recall, he lost by only 51-49 percent) during his "predictable" next attempt at a Constitutional term limit reform Referendum.
With that his intent on being gracious in defeat, not contesting the result (this time) was entirely predictable.
No additional articles on the subject necessary.
by
Brock Novak (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 2:13:24 PM
Why not just buy their oil and leave Venezuela alone to chart their own course. The US is going to fall one day and the more people we piss off the harder we will fall. We are a broke and broken nation and this type of thinking has lead us to the brink we are now perched on. The US needs to but out.
by
DCDobbs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 3:47:25 PM
Simply stated, he won't let us buy his oil very much longer. He knows the U.S. has more leverage on him than he has on the U.S.
He's understandably very uncomfortable with that.
Chavez is therefore rapidly dis-enfranchising the U.S. from his supply, shifting that current U.S. distribution to China and other aligned parties - and why the (window) time to make an economic and political impact (terminate U.S. oil supply contracts) on him is now - before he's fully re-distributed and the U.S. has no leverage.
Please read the article for detailed analysis on just this point.
by
Brock Novak (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 4:02:50 PM
What is our leverage? Assasination. Regime change by military force. It is their oil. If we hadn't actively participated in a coup, maybe we would be able to continue to buy their oil. If we hadn't poured millions of dollars into defeating this referendum and minded our own business we wouldn't be so disliked by Chavez.
If you are sugesting that we buy oil elsewhere and nothing else, that is our choice. Brazil can not replaced that amount of oil and no other country can either.
The US has behaved badly towards Venezuela.
by
DCDobbs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 4:26:50 PM
"Being his primary and effectively only customer is the U.S. leverage. He needs the U.S....The U.S. does not needs him (i.e. Venezuelan oil)."
I am sorry I missed something. I thought your meant we should stop buying oil from Venezuela and buy it from Brazil. The problem with trying to do this is oil production is barely keeping up with demand world wide. Does Brazil have excess oil to sell to US? Can Venezuela find another buyer for it's oil. In other words isn't it a sellers market?
by
DCDobbs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 6:29:11 PM
Since you refuse to read or really read the article, then to your attempt at a point, here is a factual counter-point excerpted from the article on the issue you raised - global oil supply and demand. You implied demand is or nearly outstripping supply, and the U.S. has no place to go.
Article Excerpt:
Note b): Current global oil production capacity (supply) is estimated to be approximaely 100 million barrels per day. Current global "demand" is approximately 85 million barrels per day. Therefore, there is alternative production sourcing the U.S. can immediately tap into. While on the subject, analysts project at current estimated global oil demand growth rates, that around 2012 to be when that current 85 million barels per day demand reaches the 100 milion barrels per day production capacity. At that point, if production capacity has not substantively increased, oil prices are expected to soar ($100 per barrel oil will look cheap).
Bottom line, re-sourcing Venezualen "heavy" crude with surplus global "light" crude capacity is easy for the U.S.. However, for Chavez, finding immediate new buyers for his high sulfurous (special refinery required) heavy crude will be a significant challenge, and take (alot of) time.
In other words, U.S. leverage over Venezuela. Not vice versa.
I'm now (officially) done!
by
Brock Novak (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 8:09:32 PM
11 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
