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
This is exactly why I won't vote for Obama. He is the water carrier for the hippy wing of the party. I'm against the war in Iraq, but Columbia has the absolute right to pursue rebels who are using Equador
and Venezula has staging areas for attacking Columbia.
The fact is both those countries support these terrorists.
As Americans we are outrages that Pakistan protects Taliban terrorists who attack Afghanistan, yet its puzzling how the extreme left cheers on Chavez, who is a thug, a friend to Iran and a supporter of terrorist activities
At least spell Hippie right. There is no "Y" in Hippie
Peace
Well at least Chavez has moved to secure the borders of his country, which is far more than Bush has done for the USA (hesitent to say 'his country' as Bush's policies consistently have been contrary to the best interests of the USA).
LOL are you serious?
drugs and weapons are routinely smuggled through that border with the implicit approval of Chavez
This speaks directly to Hillary's foreign policy expertise (or lack thereof). What about that red phone again?
Greg Stillson wannabe.
Obama said he'd do the same thing. He'd go into Pakistan, chasing after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That's why he "Glossed it Over".
This is an ominous statement from the Clinton camp. But it fits perfectly with her support for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. She probably would have supported Pinochet, the Nicarauquan contras and the Guatamaulan death squads too.
Hillary is correct in her assessment. The notion that a terrorist organization can freely operat in the border territory of a next door nation is absurd on the face of it. How long do you think we would allow al qeada (sp) to attack American citizens while sitting safely south of the Rio Grande? We would justifiably smash them.
Chavez needs to be taken out. He is giving us a golden opportunity. I hope he picks a fight with Columbia!
So. Senator Clinton and you are in good company; with the current US "Administration", Senator McCain, and Pat Robertson. Good on ya!
"needs to be taken out"? Kinda like "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein"? Note to Hillary-ites - The United States of America is not THE DECIDER of who can rule another country and who can't.
Isn't the USA tossing missiles into countries like Pakistan and Somalia these days under the guise of fighting terrorism? What's different?
See Robert Naiman's Profile
If your point is that the U.S. also violates international law directly, and not only through proxies, and ought to be held to account for doing so, by its citizens and by other countries, I am in 100% agreement. I don't see how this detracts in any way from my argument.
If the U.S. e.g. undertakes military operations in Pakistan with the assent of the Pakistani government, that is not a violation of Pakistani sovereignty or international law (which does not mean that it is a wise or just policy.)
Given the headline here I expect the Senators' supporters to weigh-in with their venom. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Senator Clinton proposes no change in policy and that Senator Obama plays it carefully politically. Neither one of them should be president, but then again, we aren't really talking about a free world, are we? They're only dancing for the masters with the hope of someday being able to sneak a little sunshine into the mix. In case you haven't noticed, Senator Clinton and Obama supporters, not calling it like it is only works to get elected occasionally, and ain't good for nothin' after that!
hillary's statement is exactly what i would expect from the bush white house
obama's statement reflects the discretion and judgement i would expect from my commander-in-chief as POTUS
hiilary is more than willing to throw gasoline on a spark so she can prove to the big boys that she has the cojones to play in their war games
This kind of sounds like "Blame America First" stuff. Be friends with Castro/Chavez , because he is against the United States. You are picking the wrong countries to support here. Obama does not need supporters like you.
So is the logic here that if a country we like has an incursion into a country we don't like, that's cool? And they and their allies should not be upset about that incursion. Have I got it right??
Because that is exactly the problem with our country right now. GW Bush cowboy diplomacy of military threats and non-diplomacy is what got us where we are today. God help us.
Your assuming that FARC is acting independently from Chavez and his pet Equadorians. Just like a blameamericafirster would (does the shoe fit? then wear it.). Assume that they are acting with the support and direction of Chavez, then it is self defense. Do we know all the facts? No, and that is why you and Mr. Naiman are wrong to take a shot Ms. Clinton on this.
Chavez is a butt kicker who is continually looking for a fight, doesn't matter with whom. He is currently spending millions, if not billions, throwing cash around South America as if there's no tomorrow attempting to buy all the influence he can. His current battle with Pres. Uribe is to show who's more powerful and important. By taking on the task of negotiating with the FARC in Columbia and having several successes in bringing out of the jungle several Columbians who have been kidnapped for long periods of time, Chavez is a hero to the FARC and a pariah in Columbia.
Inflation is raging in Venezuela where foodstuffs are scarce since a border close with Columbia means less products will be coming through. No one is asking the Venezuelan people if they want their leader to be interfering in every sovereign country on the continent, with the exception of Chile, to buy influence and "stature" they didn't ask for.
The entire situation of telling Venezuelan troops to "head for the border" with Columbia is pure theatre in the best sense of the word. Chavez is a joke and if he didn't have the billions of oil underneath his feet, he'd be a comma in the history books. Ask the Venezuelan people what they think of Mr. Chavez and they'll tell you their real thoughts. I used to live there and have contacts who tell me what's really happening. Chavez is an ignorant brute who won't last and ultimately will be driven from power.
Cwaspire, you are right on the money. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Chavez is a thug. To be honest, I think Hillary's comments underlie her greater insight of the situation. She is using the background of everything she knows about Chavez and the politics in the region to make her assessment, not just the facts of this single event or events.
I expect you to be the first volunteer when Preznitwit Clinton declares war on Venezuela
Chavez sounds like GW Bush to me.
Your "contacts" must be in the plutocratic 1%.
He got elected twice with 60% of the vote. The election was called free and fair by watchdog groups. What am I missing here?
He has repeatedly tried to change the Venezuelan constitution so he can stay in power indefinitely (this part of the vote failed). And his response to that failure was that he would try again.
He has shut down a TV station for no good reason. Freedom of speech has suffered during his presidency.
I wouldn't call him a dictator, but he seems to be trying hard to head in that direction.
This is exactly why I am voting for Obama. I do not trust anyone who wants to 'ratchet up' or 'leave all options on the table' or any other such 'Bush-speak'.
Chavez is a good man. Sure, he hates Bush, much as we all do. But he sure as hell cares about the people of his own country.
And I think any of us, in Chavez's place, would be pissed if we knew, as Chavez knows, that under Bush the US sponsored the failed 2002 coup attempt against him. Before we 'rush to judgement' against Chavez, let us make sure our own hands are clean.
Looks like Hilary just promoted herself from WARMONGER to CHICKENHAWK.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
