OAS: Ecuador, Colombia reach agreement on resolution

[struggle4progress]

OAS: Ecuador, Colombia reach agreement on resolution

Colombian Ambassador Camilo Ospina Wednesday said Colombia and Ecuador reached an agreement on the text of the resolution the Organization of American States (OAS) is to issue later today about their diplomatic crisis, with Ecuadorian Foreign Minister María Isabel Salvador claiming the document would be "a success for Ecuador."

"We consider this is a resolution adequate to the Colombian circumstances," Ospina told reporters before resuming a special session of ambassadors to OAS. The meeting was convened to hear the claims of two countries in connection with the incursion of Colombian troops in Ecuadorian territory to attack a camp of the rebel Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) ...

According to Ospina, the resolution states that Colombian troops entered Ecuadorian territory, "just like the Colombian government acknowledged initially, but it also suggests the possibility of violation by Colombia insofar as other rebel groups may be located in the Ecuadorian side" ...

"Ecuador has made the principle of inviolability of state's sovereignty to be explicitly expressed in the document," said Salvador.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/03/05/en_colcd_art_oas:-ecuador,-colomb_05A1410289.shtml

[Bacchus39]

1. easy enough for all parties involved

particularly since Colombia has already achieved its objective.

[struggle4progress]

2. Ecuador mobilizes more soldiers to Ecuadorian-Colombian border

www.chinaview.cn 2008-03-06 06:43:35 Print

QUITO, March 5 (Xinhua) -- Ecuador's Army mobilized on Wednesday more reinforcements to its border with Colombia, where specialists on jungle warfare operate, Ecuador's Defense Ministry reported in a communique ...

Ecuador broke diplomatic relations with Colombia after the Colombian Army bombed Ecuadorian territory ...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/06/content_7725717.htm

[struggle4progress]

3. Ecuador asks int'l community to condemn Colombia's "territorial violation"

www.chinaview.cn 2008-03-06 05:41:10

BRASILIA, March 5 (Xinhua) -- Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa said on Wednesday after a meeting with Brazilian President Lula that he hopes the international community will condemn Colombia's "territorial violation" in Ecuadorian soil ...

"My patriotism was attacked. My country was bombed," declared Correa.

"It is time to have unity in Latin America and act quickly. We ask the OAS (Organization of American States) to make an official statement as soon as possible and ratify the inviolability of national territory. We are confident in this community. We want to believe it in," said Rafael Correa after having met with President Lula ...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/06/content_7725666.htm

[struggle4progress]

4. OAS resolution says Colombia violates Ecuador's sovereignty

www.chinaview.cn 2008-03-06 05:39:50

WASHINGTON, March 5 (Xinhua) -- The Organization of American States (OAS) adopted a resolution on Wednesday and said Colombia violated Ecuador's sovereignty by launching a military raid into its territory ...

The resolution was adopted at an emergency meeting of the 34-member OAS ...

The resolution also agreed to form a commission to visit Ecuador and Colombia to investigate the Colombian raid ...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/06/content_7725665.htm

[Meshuga]

5. Still, I agree Colombia violated Ecuador's sovereignty and that is wrong

But I do agree that Colombia has achieved its objective. Even as Ecuador and Venezuela are sending troops to the border, Bogota felt it did not have to send troops since it is pretty much mission accomplished, as it seems. Hugo Chávez seems to be the one eager for a fight. He will do anything to be the focus in the media. It's what he is doing now.

I remember when a Colombian brigade went in to Brazilian territory (in the 'Cabeça do Cachorro' region) back in 1998 but the Brazilian government decided not to make a huge public display of it. The Brazilian government was firm with the Colombian government but they resolved the situation with diplomacy.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Right! The Colombian paramilitaries had not sent a contingent of 130 men, many of them former

military into Brazil to knock over a national guard armory, steal weapons to arm 1,500 men in order to assassinate the Brazilian President, either.

Nor had the Brazilian President had to meet with the Colombian President while the Colombian President confessed to him, on a different occassion, how some members of his own government had conspired with Venezuelan oligarchy to kill him, either.

Don't waste your breath here. There are some trolls at D.U., who try to interrupt and prevent conversations Democrats have with each other, but it doesn't work. There are far, FAR more Democrats here who actually do care what's happening enough to do their own homework, and exchange the information.

Either you are uninformed, or you are engaging in an attempt to disinform. Either way, it sucks. We know better.

Incidently, the head of Colombian intelligence, Jorge Noguera was also discovered to have been involved in a plot to assassinate Hugo Chavez, and, once he knew the attorney general of Colombia was going to go after him, fled the country. Jorge Noguera was also Alvaro Uribe's campaign chairman, and close associate.

Your stupid implications there is no reason for Hugo Chavez to be defensive about Colombia are completely out of place, and wildly uninformed.

[Meshuga]

7. I'm sorry but are you calling me a troll?

Just because I disagree with you in this matter? Just because people disagree with you and don't accept Chavez rhetoric at face vale it doesn't mean they are uninformed. Just because some of us in the Democratic party (including our candidates) can see through his bullshit it doesn't mean we are uninformed right-wing trolls. Grow up! FYI, I am well aware of the dirty politics in South America (including Colombia's share) and US government involvement in the area but instead of oversimplifying things and saying that one side is the victim (the good guys) and the other is the aggressor (the bad guys) I take a look at the whole picture and come to my own conclusions: in this complex situation there are two sides not to be trusted completely. Not to the conclusions that I want to reach so I can justify one side being the correct side. That's impossible to do. And find it amazing how you try to do it.

I am glad that there are people here in DU who recognize the US involvement in (wrongly) trying to take down Hugo Chavez twice and all the dirty politics. No one is saying that Colombian politics is free from corruption either. But does that really justify turning a blind eye to the fact that your hero himself first attempted to gain power in Venezuela through a coup d’état? Can you justify that? His primary objective is not to reduce poverty and inequality (the traditional leftist platform) but only to perpetuate his power. To achieve this goal he eliminates his opposition, constrains the free press and undermines democratic institutions. Can you justify that? Can you honesly justify his action just because of US involvement and Colombian involvement in trying to take him down? Is the situation really that simple? Should I assume you are uninformed?

Chavez is a fucking clown who had a great opportunity to spill his rhetoric for a bunch of people to buy at face value, and as you can see, people really bought it given the people posting generalities about the situation here in DU. In the same way that conservatives buy Bush's bullshit at face value and attack us as un-american and unpatriotic for protesting his ways. Your assumption that people are not aware of Colombian and American involvement in trying to take down Chavez are ridiculous and proof you are unable to see the dirt on the other side (on your favorite side).

[Bacchus39]

8. yeah its her typical M.O.,

use insults to hide ignorance.

yes, and why did Chavez send troops to the border?? of course to grab the spotlight.

[Meshuga]

9. He tried to grab the spotlight and got smacked on the face

The OEA resolution was a second "shut the fuck up" in Chavez direction. He loves to be the center of attention. Chavez was the biggest loser in the resolution which ignores the movement of Venezuelan troops. Everything in the resolution was written in accordance with the situation which really is a bilateral crises. The Colombian government was also a loser because the resolution recognizes that Colombia violates Ecuador's sovereignty and it doesn't leave room for Uribe's thesis that Ecuador and Venezuela harbor terrorists by affirming that the FARC are illegally in Ecuador.

Ecuador is obviously the winner.

Venezuela talked about closing the borders but they can't. Colombia exports 3 times as much as they import from Venezuela and the most important of those exports is food. Chavez really needs to shut the fuck up.

The work should be to rebuild the relations between Ecuador and Colombia through diplomacy and not by throwing more fuel on a very unwanted fire.

[EFerrari]

14. No. The work should be and is a clear signal to Colombia

that the days of Latin America suffering American interference are over. There is no "building" relations with Colombia while it is a criminal American proxy.

For someone who is so quick to insult other posters and Latin American leaders, your analysis of the situation is very shallow.

[Meshuga]

15. The OEA resolution is looking to end this with diplomacy

Where does the resolution support or even mentions Chavez's saber rattling and threats as being considered as part of the plan? FYI, the region is not interested in conflict. The other nations are trying to solve the problem diplomatically in order to avoid conflict. How hard is that for anybody to see? It might be hard for you to see because it doesn't fall in line with what Chavez is doing or saying.

IMO the only thing that is shallow is your willingness to buy the rhetoric from Chavez which doesn't really help anybody in this conflict. Are you advocating for tensions to continue? Do you think that conflict is good for the region? According to the OEA resolution it seems they disagree with you and Chavez since they are looking to end this crises not continue it.

[Bacchus39]

16. yes, if Chavez does it, then the groupies believe it is the right thing to do

its really the only thing you need to consider in "discussions" with them.

[Meshuga]

17. I know

Their double standard is amazing. They get all excited with their accusation that the US and Colombia want conflict but Chavez doesn't only get a free pass, they defend him! It is all about picking a side and defending words and actions from that side no matter what these words and actions are. It is a simple world that is simple to follow and it doesn't require much thought since there is always a formula to figure out who is on your side and who is not. You question their heros so you are automatically labeled as siding with their "enemy".

[EFerrari]

19. LOL.

Has it ever occurred to you that it's your understanding that's simple? We're discussing a complex situation involving an entire region, humanitarian concerns, international law and a political trend. And you reduce that to Chavez and hero worship.

Good grief.

[Meshuga]

21. Talking about strawman!

Who is reducing the situation to Chavez and hero worship? My comments in the last post are about the arguments here, not the situation. Nice try! ;-)

[EFerrari]

22. You might want to reread the thread to notice who brings up Chavez and how.

[Meshuga]

24. I have been pointing out how Chavez is adding more fuel to the fire and not helping.

I am not saying he is the situation. Is that so hard to understand? Oh my fucking word!

[EFerrari]

26. You question their heros so you are automatically labeled as siding with their "enemy".

[Meshuga]

27. That was a commentary in response to

...me being labeled a right wing troll. Which is bullshit.

[EFerrari]

28. And yet you have no problem responding in kind.

Not conducive to conversation or debate.

[Meshuga]

29. Well, you haven't been a saint yourself.

Everyone lost their claim to sainthood at one point or another in these threads.

[EFerrari]

30. You know, you may be right. n/t

[EFerrari]

18. I don't share a head with Chavez or with anyone.

And there will be some way found to diffuse the present crisis. But it will be a band aid. As long as Colombia solves its problems with American money and with American backed violence, there is no real resolution to the underlying problem and everyone knows that.

You have enough strawmen going here to field a team, don't you? lol

[Meshuga]

23. The problem is between Colombia and Ecuador

The day Colombia enters Venezuela in the same maner then Chavez will have all the reason in the world to be outraged. For now he is just trying to add more tension when the focus should be on solving the current bilateral issue. What would be a permanet solution in your opinion given the current situation?

[EFerrari]

25. If you are only speaking of the problem of Colombia

violating Ecuador's border to murder people instead of arresting and trying them, that might be correct.

I notice that Ecuador hasn't responded by saying, why the heck can't you people contain this problem within your own borders?

But the problem has more facets than that. Once you recognize that the United States owns the Uribe government and uses it as a lever to intrude on South American democracies to safeguard corporate interests, everything shifts some.

The next hostage release was to start a day or so after this killing. Don't you find the timing a little interesting? Who benefits from those poor people being held? The Colombian government does because then the narco trafficker president can point to some other bad guys. The United States does because it can point to the same AND we can discredit Chavez as a negotiator. It's a two-fer.

Chavez, to my mind anyway, isn't adding more tension. He's just making plain the tension that is already there.

What you've seen is just the tip of the iceberg. And as obnoxious as some Americans find Chavez, he's actually very good at pointing out the obvious -- that isn't obvious to most Americans because our own media is so sold out.

But I promise you, most people in Latin America know that Colombia is a brand of our Pentagon. They deplore murdering people in their sleep. And they don't welcome American manipulation of their internal affairs. :shrug:

[magbana]

10. Role of US is the missing context in this discussion

It is always best to consider things in context. Venezuela did not lose anything at the OAS meeting. If anything, a resolution stating that Colombia violated Ecuador’s sovereignty suggests that if Colombia tries something similar in Venezuela it would be deemed a violation of sovereignty as well. No one expected the OAS to “condemn” Colombia because it is a client state of the US and the US controls the OAS almost as much as it controls the UN Security Council.

The US is the missing piece of context in this discussion.

Now, why would Venezuela send troops to its border? A thousand reasons, but here are a few. The US takes its jabs at Venezuela through Colombia (and the threat of a US-armed military force) and has been doing so for a very long time. Plus, the US has operatives crawling all over Colombia under various covers and fronts such as: contractors, diplomats, NGO workers, and missionaries. So a cross-border attack by Colombia into Venezuela could escalate rapidly into confrontation with the US. All Colombia would have to do, under direction of the US, is engineer some incident between a couple of American “missionaries” and Venezuelan military. Wilder schemes have been used --don’t forget the US invasion of Grenada based on protecting US students who said they didn’t need protecting.

I also think that Venezuelan intelligence services have plenty of information about a variety of US-Colombian traps and schemes in the works. Don’t forget that Venezuela gets a lot of help on intelligence from one of the best in the world – Cuba. I’m sure Fidel can testify to this.

Finally, the Venezuela-Colombia border is three quarters the length of the US-Mexico frontier, making it one of the longest common borders in the hemisphere. Chavez would be endangering the people of Venezuela if he did not secure this border given the long history of US-Colombian provocation.

[Bacchus39]

11. no, I don't think Colombia is interested in fighting a war on behalf of the US

a wild scheme indeed. sure Chavez should patrol the border to keep the FARC from operating on the Venezuelan side. I doubt this is the idea though. more like a provocation for publicity's sake.

[magbana]

12. Context, Context, Context

I don’t think the people of Colombia or its army wants to do the US’s dirty work. But that is irrelevant, isn’t it? The US “owns” the Colombian army and Uribe, its commander in chief, and the army will deploy if, and when, the US says so.

Again, the context is: Afghanistan, Angola, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, etc. etc

[Bacchus39]

13. its not going to happen, don't worry

n/t

[EFerrari]

20. I've been thinking that Cuba's excellent intelligence services

have been lending a hand in S.A., too, because it's been clear for years that the U.S. wants Chavez dead.

Got through to Washington Journal this morning but it's so early for me, my brain wasn't working yet. I should have apologized to the ambassador from Ecuador for the attack on his soil made with weapons I paid for.

[magbana]

31. Fidel Saved Chavez in the 2002 Coup

I'll post the story shortly. This is such a good story that I hope someone makes a movie of it!!