Once Again US Says the End of Visas for Brazilians Is Near

[Judi Lynn]

Once Again US Says the End of Visas for Brazilians Is Near
2010 - December 2010
Written by Émerson Luiz
Saturday, 11 December 2010 01:03

In an interview with Brazil's leading weekly newsmagazine Veja, Thomas A. Shannon, the American ambassador in Brazil revealed that Washington is very interested in eliminating the need of visas for Brazilians traveling to the United States.

Nowadays Brazilians are submitted to a serious check of their economic background in order to guarantee they won't try to stay illegally in the US once their visa expires.

They also have to pay a US$ 140 fee to get the document. Brazil in retaliation charges the same amount and gives American citizens similar hard time to grant a Brazilian visa.

300,000 Brazilians apply for a Brazilian visa every year. Only China, India and Mexico have more applications. Ninety five percent of these applicants get their visa approved.

More:
http://www.brazzilmag.com/component/content/article/93-december-2010/12453-once-again-us-says-the-end-of-visas-for-brazilians-is-near.html

[social_critic]

1. Sounds a little bit counterproductive

Brazil needs US tourists more than the US needs Brazilian tourists.

[Peace Patriot]

2. "Divide and conquer"!

Treat Brazilians differently than other Latin Americans--especially than other Latin Americans in countries who also have leftist governments--and you create little niggling irritants and resentments that can contribute to the wedge that the U.S. wants to drive, for instance, between the leftist government of Lula da Silva/Dilma Rousseff in Brazil and the leftist government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, which are in accord on resisting U.S. interference in Latin America and on many other policies.

This certainly fits with the new and seemingly smoother CIA strategy in Latin America--especially South America, where so many strong leftist governments have been elected, who have acted collectively to protect each other's democracies and social justice policies. U.S.-supported coups haven't worked in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador (as Evo Morales recently pointed out--he said democracy is "3 for 1," as to the U.S. toppling elected governments and installing fascist regimes--Honduras, in Central America, being the outlier). The CIA seems to be tempering the crude Bush Junta methods, in favor of the more suave "divide and conquer."

The initial hardships that the U.S. inflicted on Brazilians, as to getting a visa, were Bushwhack policy. Brazil retaliated with equally stringent provisions. This bullshit from Shannon is a bribe and a wedge. He'll call off the Bushwhack dogs if Brazil...does what? We don't know. Previously, it has been the U.S. dictate to Lula da Silva to "isolate Chavez" (which da Silva has very pointedly disobeyed). It is virtually the entire thrust of U.S. policy in Latin America, to destroy not just leftist governments in particular countries (with Venezuela and Ecuador the most targeted, to regain control of the oil profits for Exxon Mobil and Chevron) but also to destroy the UNITY among the governments of Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, and, in Central America, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, to protect each other from U.S. assault and to forge Latin American independence and self-rule.

So it is reasonable to presume that THIS suggestion, from Shannon, is part of that overwhelming, even monomaniacal, goal--defeat Chavez, divide and defeat the Left. You wonder why Shannon "floats" this in a magazine interview? If they're going to do it, why don't they just DO it? Why this cat and mouse game? This is very likely because it is a PLOY connected to something else--to something other than visas. This also is what the U.S. does with every "free trade" issue: "Trade with the U.S. and the privileged will prosper." Pretty much only privileged Brazilians can afford travel to the U.S. This might incline privileged Brazilians away from the Workers Party government, if they are supporters (and quite a few are), or help cement them in their rightwing views. Thus they are made more compliant with U.S. corporate/war profiteer schemes and more willing to screw the vast poor majority in their own country.

DON'T think it's generous. It is NOT. DON'T think it's liberal. It is NOT. DON'T think it's an Obama "opening" or a "new day" in U.S./Latin American relations, because it is NOT. There is no "new day." There is only more of the same. When Morales stated that democracy is "3 for 1" (Venezuelan, Bolivian and Ecuadoran democracies still standing; Honduran democracy down), he added: "Obama beat us" (on Honduras). Obama. Not "the U.S." Not "the Empire." If Morales believed that there was any hope that Obama is not out to destroy democracy in Latin America, just as the Bush Junta was, he would not have said it that way. Those most at risk from our U.S. multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers have given up on Obama. This is not the only evidence of on-going bad U.S. intentions in Latin America, by any means. But it is interesting that Morales--the mildest of men--said it. (The worst that Chavez has said of Obama is that he is "the prisoner of the Pentagon.") "Obama beat us." Beat honest, transparent elections. Beat democracy. Beat majority rule. Beat free speech. Let Honduran fascists beat up and kill teachers, trade unionists and other coup protestors. Let them shut down all opposition media. Let them shoot up the presidents house, and remove him at gunpoint from his country, with a refueling stop at a U.S. air base in Honduras, and then contrived an absurd "election," under martial law, to keep the fascists in power. "Obama beat us."

Shannon is up to no good.