Specifically, I disagree with you when you say, “Washington’s activation of the Fourth Fleet must be interpreted in Brasília as a partial response to Brazil’s armament drive and its de facto influence over the region.”

Considering that Brazil purchases a large portion of these arms from the US, it would be surprising if that were the interpretation in Brasilia. Where did you get this idea from?

Also, I think your portrayal of Uribe as negative and obstructionist is unfair. His hesitance is understandable given the alleged connections between the FARC and the governments of Ecuador and Venezuela. Until the issue is resolved his decision seems prudent to say the least.

Finally, you assert that “The recent 180 degree turn in Colombia’s policy highlights the depth of the Bush administration’s financial tug on Bogotá”

First, Colombia still supports Unasur, it merely did not sign on to the Defense Council. Second, it seems much more plausible that the information contained in the FARC laptops led to Colombia’s hesitance to join the CSD rather than any US arm-twisting.

I don’t think you sufficiently appreciate the fact that both Ecuador and Venezuela deployed troops to the Colombian border three months ago and have allegedly supported the FARC. These facts seem serious enough to merit consideration before blithely accusing the US of more intervention in South American affairs.

Nathan Gill
Southern Affairs