The fleet’s in (the back yard)

The United States Navy’s Fourth Fleet was established in 1943 to patrol the South Atlantic and guard against U-boat attacks during the Second World War.  Its mission became redundant after the war, and the fleet was absorbed by the Second Fleet in 1950.  This year, it was re-established, with a new threat in mind.  At least that is the conclusion of a military and academic panel that recently met in Mexico City.

Alfredo Méndez reported on 27 August about panel’s public discussion for Jornada (my translation).

Experts agree that the announcement by the United States that it is reactivating the Fourth Fleet should set off alarms throughout Latin America.

They believe the intention of the world’s largest economic and military power is to increase their presence in the southern part of the Americas, control natural resources (petroleum and water especially) and stave off central and south American emancipation movements.
Last April 24, the United States announced re-establishment of the Fourth Fleet, under the command of Joseph Kernan, arguing that the move was multi-lateral, creating cooperative ties in the fight against terrorism and/or narcotics trafficking, while strengthening humanitarian work in the nations of the region during eventual natural disasters.

The strategy of the neighboring country includes establishing a military base on the Caribbean Island of Curacao [part of the Netherlands Antilles], north of Venezuela.

At a round-table discussion held last Monday at Casa Lamm, academics and experts on Latin American studies, Carlos Fazio, José Steinsleger, José Luis Piñeiro and General José Francisco Gallardo unamously called for the Latin American peoples to wake up to the threat and to not accept United States militarization.

U.S. Sub-secretary of State, Thomas Shannon, says that the Marines are not going to be sent anywhere south of the Rio Grande, nor serve in the territorial waters of any Latin American country, and that the fleet has no offensive capacity.
.
“Do you believe (the Americans)? I don’t. That’s too restrictive,” said General Gallardo, who chaired the discussion, called “The Return of the Fourth Fleet and Pentagon Projections in Latin America.”
The Mexican military officer said that in reality Washington is re-enforcing it’s economic supremacy and attempting to recover it’s geo-political hegemony. The military strategy “lets them bomb any town in Latin America in less than 90 minutes.”

José Steinsleger, an expert in international relations and contributor to La Jornada, expounded on “a recent Security Council study on United States foreign relatios that concluded the country had lost it’s hegemony in the regin and had to move in a new direction.” In that context, the re-establishment of the Fourth Fleet makes sense, he said.

There is suspicion about the White House and Pentagon project – which supposedly is for “humanitarian” purposes and “collaboration” with South American nations. “ Rear Admire Joseph Kernan is a member of a SEAL group (special naval forces) of elite commandos, specializing in reconnaissance, counter-insurgency and irregular warfare,” cautioned Carlos Fazio, another specialist in these matters, and also a Jornada contributor.

José Luis Piñeiro, an academic from the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana said the United States seeks other things, among them reducing the influence of the Venezeulan President, and countering Brazil’s economic development.

Mexican — and other Latin American — military experts have to take the possibility of United States actions seriously. While Mexico’s present administration — unlike those of Bolivia and Venezuela, which have complained of U.S. involvement in separatist movements in resource rich regions of their countries — the United States has invaded — or threatened to invade — Mexico several times when to protect access to its oil supply. Mexico is one of the three largest oil suppliers to the United States (usually second largest, but that varies from month to month), and, changes in the Mexican Administration, or perceived “instability” that might threaten the oil supply would be a logical use for this fleet.

What makes me worry is what the United States will define as “instability”. General James T. Hill, United States Army Commander, United States Southern Command in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on 24 March 2004 defined “radical populism” as the most serious threat in Latin America. “Radical populism” was a charge thrown against AMLO in the 2006 Presidential elections, and U.S. involvement in his problematic loss is still a question to be resolved. Had AMLO won, would Mexico be a threat to United States security requiring “humanitarian assistance” in the form of the Marines?

In Colombia, “narcotics control” has been used to justify military support which is being used to silence opponents to the regime. If the United States wanted to intervene (or force still more military control over the Mexican people), claiming narcotics were destabilizing the country wouldn’t be surprising.

And.. given what Latin Americans saw of the United States’ inability to provide assistance when one of its own cities was devastated, they are skeptical of the claims that the purpose of a fleet is purely “humanitarian”.

I once asked a Mexican military commander (not that I hang with them, but we used to both have coffee at the same time, at the same Sanborns every day) what the Mexican Army guarded against. With the Cold War a dead issue, there are only three real foreign threats: upheavals in Guatemala might lead to guerrillas seeking sanctuary in Chiapas (as happened in the 1980s) and dealing with refugees; a revolt or civil war in Cuba, which would also create refugees; and an invasion by the United States.