Thursday, September 30, 2010

Attempted Coup in Ecuador

It appears that there is an ongoing coup attempt in Ecuador as we speak. Details are very hard to determine as with any coup attempt, but here is what is known:

1) Section of the Police have occupied the airport in Quito and perhaps have occupied parts of Quito and Guayaquil.
2) President Rafael Correa, recovering from knee surgery, attempted to confront the police earlier today but was teargassed and now is sequestered in hospital.
3) According to President Chavez in a TELESUR interview, Correa is surrounded by police, but is not in custody. However, they are not allowing anybody to see him, including cabinet ministers and the Venezuelan Ambassador.
4) Despite reports that the protests were sparked by cuts to the police budget, that according to the Ecuadorian interior and exterior ministers, the protests were well arranged in advance as an excuse to launch the coup.
5) Following Honduras and Venezuela, this is the 3nd coup in the last decade in Latin America. It remains to be seen what involvement there is by the US.

We encourage all our supporters to remain vigilant for news of the coup which we obviously denounce. We will keep everybody informed of developments and possible action points as they come forward.

* Defend the Latin American Revolution!
* Down with US Imperialist backed coups!
* Hands off Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia!




SecondComingOfBast said...

I did a post on this and linked to this one. I say the coup failed simply because it didn't enjoy wide-spread popular support. This wasn't about politics, it was simply Greece in miniature, a segment of the populace (in this case, the police) reacting to a cut in benefits.

Let them cut entitlements to the population (or to the military) and you might see a different outcome.

Frank Partisan said...

In Greece they don't attack physically the president, and put him in the hospital.

The slow army response, is a sign it was a coup.

I expect documentation to US support to come available. It did in Venezuela.

Correa is not nearly as radical as Chavez.

SecondComingOfBast said...

This is the army of Ecuador, not the US Army Rangers. They seemed to respond pretty quickly and efficiently to me, for what they are. Remember, they had to move with caution. Their president's life was at stake. Unless Ecuador turns out to be a new, untapped source of large oil or uranium reserves or something equally important, I don't see why you think the US, and the Obama Administration, would want to take the chance of destabilizing an entire region over such a relatively unimportant little country as Ecuador.

This is all the more true as you are forever pointing out to me the US doesn't want to destabilize first one region or another, such as Iran, for example.

You're also engaging in blatant speculation, something you are always criticizing me for on my blog.

You're just itching for an opportunity to blame the US. Don't be a hater.

sonia said...

This is leftist hypocrisy at their most obvious:

You protest in Greece = you're a brave revolutionary hero

You protest in Ecuador = you're a reactionary CIA agent

In Greece they don't attack physically the president

Only because the Greek president wasn't crazy enough to get so close to the protesters...

blackstone said...

Keep updating on this issue. This is my main source for these events Bro

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: I said I can't prove the US is behind or in support of the coup, but I expect info to surface.

The army's response was slow. Part of the army supported the coup.

Government officials unable to see the president? That spells more than a strike.

Sonia: Taking over the airport and government run TV station is more than a Greece like general strike.

It was workers who stopped the coup.

Greece's protests are usually supported by the whole labor movement.

No way US didn't know or greenlight it somehow. Obama's statement was identical to what was said about Honduras.

Blackstone: Great to hear from you.

SecondComingOfBast said...


You are obviously not adept at military tactics or strategy. If anything, they moved a little too quickly, and possibly with some carelessness. There's more to it than just aiming your gun and firing at the first thing that moves.

The idea that the US government being involved, especially the Obama Administration, is so laughable its not worthy of serious consideration.

Frank Partisan said...

The Honduras coup occured under Obama, as well as tightening the Cuba embargo. He increased military bases in Central & South America. Obama is to the right of Bush on Latin America.

Frank Partisan said...

A tipoff was State Department spokesman, Phillip Crowley, saying we're "monitoring (not denouncing) the situation," much like it refused to condemn Zelaya's ouster, instead calling on "all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law, and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter." Most other Latin states demanded his "immediate and unconditional return," whether or not they meant it.

sonia said...


The Honduras coup occured under Obama, as well as tightening the Cuba embargo. He increased military bases in Central & South America. Obama is to the right of Bush on Latin America.

Hopefully, you're right. It might also explain other defeats of the left in Latin America since Obama took office (right's victories in Colombia, Panama and Chile, Lula's successor failing to win in the first round, Raoul's imitating Margaret Thatcher by firing government workers by thousands, etc.).


The idea that the US government being involved, especially the Obama Administration, is so laughable its not worthy of serious consideration.

I think your hatred of Obama blinds you to reality. On Latin America, Obama seems to have a positive influence.

But I don't think US was involved in Ecuador's "coup". It was too spontaneous and ill-organized.

SecondComingOfBast said...


"On Latin America, Obama seems to have a positive influence."

I think what you might be seeing is a lessening of tensions. That's understandable, seeing as how Obama is closer aligned ideologically to Chavez than Bush ever was or ever could be.

Anything else that might be positive doesn't have much to do with the US, and everything to do with the fact that Chavez and his allies are starting to unravel. You just don't see it too much, other than a tightening of budgets (which was what led to the Ecuador coup).

Ren thinks the US is the be-all and the end-all of everything that happens in Latin America. We exert very little influence on events in Latin America, and what influence we do exert is generally positive. There's just not enough of it to make much of a difference one way or another.

If we did, Chavez would have never come to power to begin with.

Frank Partisan said...

The background to everything, is the world capitalist crisis. All economies are connected.

Sonia: Lucio Gutiérrez (former president of Ecuador) declared in an interview, “The end of Correa’s tyranny is at hand”, also asking for the “dissolution of parliament and a call for early presidential elections”. That spells coup.

The new president of Colombia, reopened relations with Venezuela, and dropped charges of support to FARC.

Raul Castro believes in the "Chinese Model." Cuba is not China, where there was industry and millions of cheap laborers. Small countries aren't important to any discussion of socialism or capitalism. Obama himself has little to do with that. Marx never mentioned countries like that.

I'm sure Lula's party will win.

Chile has a moderate government.

I'm studying Brazil. Some call it imperialist, others not.

Obama's statement was identical to his Honduras, and out of line with South Americans leaders. He never condemned the rioters.

Next year Calderon is gone.

Pagan: Chavez didn't talk socialism, until after the coup and lockout.

Bolivarian countries aren't "unraveling." They are hurt by the capitalist crisis. All of them are capitalist countries. The American right opposes Social Security and minimum wage laws. You guys are talking about cuts so deep, democracy would unravel.

Correa has a 67% approval rating.

Larry Gambone said...

I hope Correa strings these assholes up by the gonads. No more right wing coups in Latin America!

SecondComingOfBast said...

Gambone, your leftist paranoia is showing. The police were pissed because Correa cut their benefits. When your hear hoofbeats tromping, think horses, not zebras.

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: When was the last strike that you heard a demand to abolish parliament and hold elections later? Not a strike, it's a coup.

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: Pure Bonapartism, rule by force.

It's not smart launching a coup, against a president with a 63%+ approval rating.

Sonia: My group won all its seats in the Brazilian elections.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I never claimed it wasn't a coup, or that it was a good idea to have one, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. My only objection is to the idea that because someone tried to overthrow a head of state in Latin America, by definition the US had to be behind it or involved in some way.

The fact that Correa enjoys a sixty-four percent approval rating is all the more reason the US would not have done this.

Show me what natural resources the US hoped to take advantage of, or what strategic value exists in Ecuador, and we can discuss it.

Until then, this is nothing but just another excuse to diss the US as far as I'm concerned.

Frank Partisan said...

In the colonial days, resources were a cause of things as wars. The US now is stuck in Afghanistan, for no reason.

Correa got US bases out of Ecuador.

Why Zalaya? He wasn't radical.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Zelaya didn't come close to Correa's approval rating, additionally he tried to subvert his own country's constitution and rule of law. And how was the US involved in that anyway? More speculation.

Obama tried to support Zelaya, but pulled back his support in the face of criticism from his political opponents here.

Afghanistan was a failed state which allowed a terrorist group to stage an attack on US soil.

When Bush attacked Iraq, leftists used to cry about how Afghanistan was a justifiable war, but Bush had diverted resources from it to engage in Iraq.

I see now what that was worth. Just more Bush-bashing. Now that Iraq is almost settled, suddenly Afghanistan seems not to have been so justifiable after all.

May the Gods help us if you leftists ever do get control over the US. The only war you would find justifiable would be against those fucking straw men you're always bringing up.

And they'd probably kick our asses.

Frank Partisan said...

Zelaya was an easy target, because he had no knowledge or fortitude to defend himself. The US ruling class split on Honduras. The ambassador from the US was involved. The banana republic constitution was written by a military junta.

Obviously I'm not a liberal, who supported the Democratic Party with the good war business. The only war is class war.

I don't attack Bush, and I enjoy Glen Beck. The Democrats are in power. In the end Obama bashing will backfire for the right.

SecondComingOfBast said...

"The Democrats are in power. In the end Obama bashing will backfire for the right."

Anything you say, Mr. "The Republicans are a dead party".

Frank Partisan said...

Obama bashing is like Bush bashing. Just partisan nonsense. Both Keynesians and monetarists are correct.

The GOP peaked early.

sonia said...

Next year Calderon is gone.

I hope so too. And I hope his successor will legalize drugs in Mexico, allowing free market capitalism in ALL sectors of the economy. Otherwise, Mexico will be worse than Afghanistan. (It's already worse than Iraq).