Obama Glosses Colombian Attack in Ecuador; Clinton Calls for Escalation Against Venezuela
The Clinton and Obama forces have asked us to consider who we want answering the phone at the White House at 3 AM. There is little need to speculate. We have a lot of evidence about how they will respond.
On Saturday, Colombia launched an attack on a FARC camp in Ecuador, with, Ecuador plausibly alleges, U.S. support. Colombia's President Uribe -- a close Bush ally -- lied to Ecuador's President Correa about the attack, claiming it was in "hot pursuit." Ecuador's soldiers, when they reached the scene and recovered the bodies of FARC members who had been killed, reported to Correa that they had been asleep when attacked. They were in their underwear. Correa called it a "massacre." Both Ecuador and Venezuela have moved troops to their borders with Colombia, warned Colombia about violating their sovereignty, and cut diplomatic relations with Colombia.
Colombia's attack was a flagrant violation of Ecuador's sovereignty. "Hot pursuit" was Colombia's only possible defense. There is no right in international law to engage in military attacks into another country with which you are not at war if it is not an immediate continuation of an engagement that began within your borders (unless your action is explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council.) If you say that international law doesn't matter, you're essentially saying that Colombia has special rights to violate international law because it's a U.S. ally. That may sell well inside the Beltway, but it's going to sell very poorly, in general, from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego.
While no-one should dispute that the tactics of the FARC have caused tremendous suffering -- as have the tactics of the U.S.-backed Colombian government -- it's important to consider the likely motivations of the Colombian government for carrying out this operation. Raul Reyes, the top leader in the FARC who was killed, led negotiations that resulted in the FARC releasing six political hostages to Venezuela, including four a week ago. This is a pattern for the Bush-backed Colombian government -- to meet the "threat" of successful diplomacy with military escalation. The Colombian government, with vigorous U.S. support, is taking actions whose probable consequence is to reduce the likelihood that FARC hostages will be released -- including three American captives.
Now consider the statements of the Democratic presidential candidates. First, Obama:
Obama Statement on Recent Events near Colombia's Borders - March 03, 2008"The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The recent targeted killing of a senior FARC leader must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region. The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors."
Obama is absolutely right, of course, that nothing should used as a "pretense" to ratchet up tensions or threaten the stability of the region. But this glosses over the apparent fact that Colombia flagrantly, deliberately, and with premeditation violated Ecuador's sovereignty. Ecuador is a U.S. ally. The U.S., as a member of the Organization of American States, has an obligation to defend Ecuador's sovereignty. If you say that doesn't matter, then what you're saying is that a country like Ecuador can't rely on the U.S. to behave in accordance with international law, and has to turn to countries like Venezuela to help defend its sovereignty (as it has.) In this assertion, you'd have a lot of agreement in Ecuador, including from its U.S.-educated president.
Obama says, "The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors." That's absolutely correct. He might also note that the U.S. - which is a protagonist through its role in Colombia -- shares this obligation.
Now let's consider Hillary's statement:
Statement from Hillary Clinton - 3/3/2008"Hugo Chavez's order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia's actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As president, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course."
This is 100% wrong. Hillary acts as if the "event" is not the Colombian attack in Ecuador, but the Venezuelan response (Ecuador, the country whose sovereignty was violated, is an afterthought.) According to Hillary, Colombia has "every right" to "defend itself" by violating Ecuador's sovereignty -- that's the event -- but if Venezuela sends troops to its side of the Venezuela-Colombia border -- its own national territory -that's "unwarranted and dangerous." Hillary says that "after reviewing the situation," she is hopeful that Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in "closer cooperation with Colombia" -- the country that just flagrantly violated its sovereignty -- than with Venezuela, its ally that is speaking up against the violation. She is hopeful that Ecuador will lick the hand that beats it. As president, she will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to press Venezuela to change course. Good luck with that. It's the U.S. and Colombia that need pressure to change course -- to forswear violations of international law and to choose real diplomacy.
Judging from Hillary's statement, we should expect no meaningful change in U.S. policy towards Colombia, Ecuador, or Venezuela (which she falsely claims is a dictatorship) if she is elected president -- unless it is a change to make it worse.
UPDATE: Ecuador says it was in talks with rebels to release 12 hostages, including Ingrid Betancourt and three Americans, that the talks were in an advanced stage, and that the process was thwarted by the Colombian raid.
AP: "President: Ecuador was in talks with rebels to release 12 hostages, including Betancourt"
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Drug trafficking terrorists". Hell, we never did a deal without having an escort from the Colombian military. Of course, we were in the North, and I never went down into the Colombian Amazon were the FARC were at that time.
It's part of the plan, to dissolve the government through financial troubles along with a political will that we be absolved and absorbed into the EU.
Hillary = Bush.
Holy shit.
I agree with you 100% Mr. Naiman. Hillary couldn't be more wrong if her name was Hillary Bush. United States policy regarding Latin America has always been immoral and often illegal. But we got away with it when we were a super power. It just ain't gonna work anymore. Its time for the United States to learn to live within its means and within its borders.
"We got away with it...when we were a superpower
It's long past time, Mr. WorkingClass, that you stopped identifying yourself with those who exploit the world.
There is no "We" there.
I'd say all this actually proves is we're all screwed. The idea that either Obama or Clinton represent significant change is false. America thinks it's above international law, and that will continue to be the case, the differences in candidates is so small as to be almost meaningless.
Chavez is no prize, but then again Uribe is essentially a fascist who owes his power to US support. Be honest people, we don't really give a damn about the people of Venezuela or Colombia, we care about greed and power and how our foreign policy helps America's corporate interests. Many of you may consider that to be a comment made by an "America hater." In fact, I love my country, or at least the ideas on which it was founded, I'm just not willing to pretend those ideas are what drives the modern political process. If you think the president, or anyone still in the running has any interest in your plight or improving your life, you're wrong.
If you really want to fix things, the first step is to acknowledge we've got a problem. We have a problem, and there's not a candidate currently running that has any intention of fixing it.
"there's not a candidate currently running that has any intention of fixing it". Thats true if you don't consider Ralph Nader a candidate. I cant blame you if you don't. Both parties had their chance. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were both good candidates although they differed ideologically. The three left standing are all owned by the same people. Why do you suppose the voters made the choices they did? I would suggest they are sheep. Lambs to the slaughter, actually.
So is Gravel!
Ron Paul is still running.
You write, "Be honest people, we don't really give a damn about the people of Venezuela or Colombia, we care about greed and power and how our foreign policy helps America's corporate interests.
Hillary is for wars of aggression, an international crime proposed by PNAC. Just recently in Texas she praised the Bush slaughter in Iraq as Freedom Building. Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld or any PNAC murderer could have written that line.
clinton's statement reads as if it came straight from the offices of george bush (which, btw, it very well may have) and completely changes the subject to venezuela - ready on day one
obama's statement is reasoned, clear and calm - judgement
clinton's statement is combative, unreasoned and negative, basically pouring gas on the fire, whether intentionally or not, one can only guess
obama represents the american people's last best hope to take back our country from those who have all but destroyed it
clinton is a mysteriously wealthy (whipping out a 5 million dollar check when the clinton campaign's lavish lifestyle put their finances into the toilet) bush/cheney/rove stealth candidate (where's that billary tax return, btw?)
Hillary Clinton 100% wrong on foreign policy? AGAIN????????????
Gott en Himmel, please don't let her become Commander-In-Chief. We've lost far too many of our military and slaughtered far too many brown people already this century.
Hillary is so profoundly stupid. Did you hear her remark about the new Russian president the other day? She has the foreign policy cajones of George Bush.
so, bad policy is stupid?
No, she is simply Business as Usual.
From the perspective of FARC's current and recently released hostages and their families and friends, this is a human tragedy regardless of the politics. My deepest hopes and wishes are for the immediate safe release of the probably dying Ingrid Betancourt and the FARC's other remaining hostages. Frankly, I don't give a flying wallenda who "negotiates" it -- even if it's the otherwise loathesome French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has offered to personally go to Colombia to secure Betancourt's release. Can you imagine George Bush making such a gesture, however empty it might be?
Well said.
I agree, Hillary is a hotheaded warmonger just like the Republicans. She is more concerned with sounding tough and opinionated than actually getting it right or showing good judgment.
Obama is consistently more collected and cautious, and not in a bad way. He doesn't rush to bellicose language at the drop of a hat, he considers the situation in its correct context, and responds in a dignified manner, instead of Hillary who thinks it is best to deal with world leaders by calling them dictators or "soulless" (Putin, according to Hillary, very diplomatic).
Sen Clinton's response is typical of the knee jerk reactions so often perpetrated by US politicians. Obama's response makes a lot more sense considering we need change, both at home as well as in foreign policy. Diplomacy is always preferred over hostilities.
I am amused by an apparent epidemic of "situation-specific principle.
And yes, that IS an oxymoron.
Compare the range of opinion on Columbia / Ecuador / ( Venezuela) with.... the absolute silence on Turkey invading northern Iraq.
Both Columbia and Turkey -- each an American ally -- feel more than justified in crossing a border -- each into an American ally -- to pursue and kill "terrorist
See what our "pre-emptiveness" has wrought?
oop... "Col-O-mbia"
This is the difference between the Obama supporters and the Hillary supporters. Hillary supporters see him a rogue thug who supports terrorists, and every Yahoo who shoute "death to America".
The Obama supporters see him as a younger version of their idol Fidel Castro and Che Guereva and cheer him on like a rock star...
Suit up then pbarba, and go fight em. It's amazing all the folks calling for war and aggression
Everybody is a terrorist. Oh, with the exception of whites and latinos.
I'll be glad to see hillary lose. She's a deceitful liar.
This is the type of 60's hippy ultra liberal foreign policy that the Obama people support, and will cost us the election in November.
You guys sing give "peace a chance" light your bongs and shout "groovy man" while Chavez attacks Columbia for standing up to the terrorists he financially and logistically supports..
McCain will kick your hippy butts in November..
Oh, the troll again.
"while Chavez attacks Columbia" ???
uh-uh
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
