Don't be tricked by the mainstream media - Uribe didn't win. FOCAL (NED of Canada) had an analysis of this conflict today in the Grope and Flail to support their editor's anti-Chavez rant from earlier this week. Apparently according to these two this incident was manufactured by Chavez to create conflict, support terrorism in the region, draw attention away from his collapsing government, and generally to be the big bad wolf.
Lets review the facts (short list):
Colombia was the aggressor launching a strike within Ecuador without Ecuador's permission (Uribe: "I told them it was happening" makes it all okay, right?).
Ecuador responded immediately against the military aggression in its territory by taking up defencive position on its border (a logical response to a military attack on your territoriy by another country).
Venezuela, ally of Ecuador and also facing potential strikes in its territory by Colombia, responds similarly.
Colombia "does not" mobilize its army in response (therefore they are the "good guys"). Ignoring the FACT that its army is ALREADY mobilized (civil war) and already on the border (launched a military strike into Ecuador).
International condemnation against the act - including other rightwing governments in the region: Peru (immediately) and Mexico as well as "moderates" in Chile (immediately) and "centre-left" Brazil (immediately and strongly) and Argentina (immediately and strongly). But it is Chavez's fault according to FOCAL.
Uribe finds a laptop with emails detailing a "300" -obviously $300 million from Chavez to FARC for 2.5$ million per (specific amount, whatever it was way overpriced) in unrefined uranium. Be scared. Dirty bomb -international terrorist! Ecuador was *gasp* talking to FARC! Maybe that is what Uribe should be doing...
France, Ecuador, Venezuela respond: Reyes was negotiating the release of Betancourt. Uribe - you idiot!
Fit this into the wider picture of hostage releases, Chavez has had more success at this in a couple of months than Uribe in years - yes it is because of an ideological alliance, but that is besides the point if it eventually leads to the demobilization of FARC and real negotiations for peace. Chavez by negotiating the release of hostages is hardly making the FARC a more viable fighting force and perpetuating the conflict. FARC is losing the "war" against Uribe's army that is true, but FARC will not be defeated through slaughter and nor will the civil war end when they are dead - peace has to be established. Uribe doesn't want it.
For Uribe this incident has helped his support. Chavez is a monster (according to Colombians on Facebook).
But with the handshake, the request for forgiveness, and the promise to not do it again - it is Uribe who has been defeated. He found zero friends in Latin America for his American style preemptive strike. Correa meanwhile has gained in national and international statue for being level headed, hard dealer, and a nice guy to invite to your country to have talks (he talked with Alán García of Peru even!) - he proved his little country wont be bullied easily, that it will seek out friends, and in the end is looking for a peaceful resolution (Chavez apparently didn't get his war that FOCAL/NED argued he was looking for). Uribe learned that being an American puppet in Latin America is not popular, will get him isolated, and that in the end keeping in line with his neighbourhood watch is second only to internal politics. Uribe lost, but the US lost most.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey. I'll copy a response/question I had from the LANR blog. By the way, where are you in Ontario?
It seems to me that while this whole ordeal may have served to increase Correa's profile in continental politics, Uribe came out relatively unscathed. He was able to kill the FARC's second in command (while violating Ecuador's sovereignty), escape sanction from the OEA and solidify domestic support in exchange for a facetious apology. I'm not sure how he can be seen as a loser in this crisis.
I'd be interested to hear you views on Chavez's behaviour. He seems to have taken on the role of self-proclaimed beacon of socialism in Latin America. Whether other leftist leaders choose to view him that way is another question. (Ortega, for instance, was busy mounting a successful revolution while Chavez was still a babbling military officer). Why was he so quick to involve himself in an crisis that marginally affected, if at all, his country's affairs? It seems to me that it was mainly to reinforce his role as a power broker and provoke a response from the US, a country which he correctly demonizes while knowing that they cannot currently effectively respond. His words and actions were aggressive and inflammatory and certainly didn't endear him to any of his detractors or even those on the Colombian political left. Why?
I suspect Uribe has been able to rally more support in Colombia - at least temporarily. But I suspect that it also increased the division and gave the opposition groups another issue to hammer away at Uribe. So in that sense he might not have "lost" anything.
But I think we have to look at it as to what Uribe thought he was going to accomplish. Personally, I have no idea what he really thought was going to happen but here are some possible "positive" scenarios:
1. Ecuador meekly accepts the events, Colombia accomplishes an assassination against the FARC and also establishes a precedent for unilateral attacks against "terrorists".
2. Ecuador responds diplomatically but doesn't find international support outside of Venezuela. This probably was the ideal as it would serve to isolate Venezuela and Ecuador politically. This would be a stronger affirmation of the preemptive strike doctrine.
3. War. I don't think Uribe really wanted this and it was highly unlikely, but it would have supported the anti-Chavez rhetoric in the opinion of many that he is a warmonger. US would increase support and there would be opposition movements against the "left".
Uribe started off in an isolated position in Latin America without any close friends or ideological allies (Mexico and Peru being the closest, not saying much because of a long list of differences). Ending up where he started off was a big loss, especially because it became clear to everyone the rest of Latin America wouldn't tolerate military actions against neighbours. Even worse - it appears the hostage releases are going to continue through Chavez and now Correa.
As to why Chavez got involved. Yes there are national interests and personal issues for him - like any President of a country though. He is a political ally of Ecuador, as was mentioned at LANR a small country in comparison to Colombia - an immediate and unequivocal response from their allies was important. I also think that an attack on Ecuador was also a signal to Venezuela that "we can do this to you too", so Venezuela had its own sovereignty stake in this. I suspect that this event also put Colombia's other neighbours, Brasil, Nicaragua, Peru, and Panama on notice and partly explains their reaction as well. I don't think Venezuela was in fact "marginally affected" as a result. The signal of what Colombia had done and what it potentially mean for neighbours was pretty clear. It was indeed a personal attack against Chavez as well - Reyes was one of the contacts for the hostage releases, Colombia knew this, and they wanted to put a stop on the hostage releases through Chavez.
Chavez plays roles, and the mainstream media quotes only his most vicious character, he also played the diplomatic character:
At the RG Summit:
"It is time for reflection and action, we are still on time to stop a whirlpool that we could regret, and not only us, but our people, children and communities, for who knows how long," said the Venezuelan leader.
"Let’s stop this. Let’s be cool-headed and act like rational people, because if we continue, this will keep heating up," said Chávez.
from:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41514
Its good to read practical views in a blog. This type of "black" reporting is being seen more and more ignoring the real and central issues: sovereignty, Colombia and Ecuadorian reaction.
All the other people who mainstream media used to distract from the real issue are secondary players, either as allies or concerned neighbors.
We see this type of poor reporting, if it can even be called reporting, all the time.
I am glad to see SA leaders "handled their own business" so to speak.
Post a Comment