War in S. America? - What is our Obligation if any

Yes, MM, it is true that you mentioned Ecuador--but you only mentioned in the context of the Columbian pretext, you made no mention of the undeniable fact that we have the same treaty obligations to Ecuador as we do toward Columbia. Your post clearly sides with Columbia, and it makes no mention that Ecuador is the agrieved party. Rather, you simply ask (and one assumes from the tenor of the post, rhetorically) if we should honor our treaty obligations. If one alleges that we should, how would you then reconcile our obligations to Ecuador with our obligations to Columbia. I asked you a series of questions, and you have provided no plausible answers.

0 Replies

BTW it is Colombia.

0 Replies

Once again, i think we should mind our own business, and i see no plausible argument that any of this is our business. However, if one alleges that fighting FARC and the drug trade is our business, then i ask why we are not involved in Ecuador, as well as Columbia. FARC operates out of Ecuador as from a sanctuary. One could argue that the Ecuadorans are responsible for that situation, but it would be a feeble argument in relation to nation with a small, ill-equipped, ill-trained and ill-paid army. If we wanted, truly, to do something constructive about this situation, we could re-allocate some of the literally billions of dollars that we pour into Columbia each year, and re-direct it to Ecuador, to fight the FARC threat there, and to help nip the cocaine trade in the bud--Ecuador, just as do Peru and Bolivia, produces the raw material of cocaine, the leaves of the coca plant. To convince dirt-poor farmers that they want to stop producing coca, they will need to be provided a reasonable alternative in the way of a cash crop, as well as subsistence farming.

Of course, we could just play cowboy, as that clown in the White House appears to be fond of doing, choose sides, and ride in shooting. I have no doubt that there are millions of conservatives in this country who think that would be the "right" thing to do.

0 Replies

I think there are two distinct issues at play here; (1) The dispute between Equador and Colombia resulting from the Colombian incursion to get the FARC forces holed up in a relatively unpopulated area on the Equadorean side of their mutual border, and the possibility that more may follow; (2) The noise being raised by Chavez in his attempts to create some kind of Andean/ "Bolivarian" alliance, involving Equador, opposed to the U.S., and possibly to distract Venezuelans from the growing evidence of the calamatous effects of his economic policies and mismanagement of the nationalized petroleum industry.

The truth is neither issue is likely to amount to much. Venezuela and Colombia have substantial and mutually beneficial trade for which neither can easily substitute. Equador has its own - much more serious - border problems with its main neighbor, Peru (there was a sustained shooting war between the two along this border about eight years ago in which we played a major role in mediation - and in restraining Peru. The troubles there persist.) Finally the self-limiting qualities of the Chavez "revolution" in Venezuela are becoming ever more evident.

I believe the only "obligation' we have is to look out for our own interests, which are to maintain peace where we can and help Colombia escape the grip of the narco-guerilla FARC and other "revolutionary" forces there. I doubt very much that any of this will require significant action on our part.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Yes, MM, it is true that you mentioned Ecuador--but you only mentioned in the context of the Columbian pretext, you made no mention of the undeniable fact that we have the same treaty obligations to Ecuador as we do toward Columbia. Your post clearly sides with Columbia, and it makes no mention that Ecuador is the agrieved party. Rather, you simply ask (and one assumes from the tenor of the post, rhetorically) if we should honor our treaty obligations. If one alleges that we should, how would you then reconcile our obligations to Ecuador with our obligations to Columbia. I asked you a series of questions, and you have provided no plausible answers.

And again you missed what I said, so I will repeat it again.

Quote:

The problem is that while Columbia did technically violate article 9 of the INTER-AMERICAN TREATY OF RECIPROCAL ASSISTANCE, if Venezuela does attack Columbia, they would also seem to be in violation, and according to the treaty it would draw EVERY country in the America's, from Canada south, into the conflict.

Here is the actual treaty I am referring to...

http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-29.html

So the question is, do we honor the treaty or not?

So, I am admitting that Columbia did violate the treaty, and if Ecuador were to retaliate, that would be acceptable under the treaty.
But, do we honor our committment under that same treaty?

That is the question I am asking.

0 Replies

You're the one missing the points, and no surprise there. I asked you a series of questions, without personal comments, to which you responded snidely, with a personal comment . . . and no answers to the questions. You have only grudgingly had it dragged out of you that you are not favoring Columbia over the other nations, and i strongly suspect that your original opinion was that we should ride off to Columbia's aid, and the devil take the hindmost. Whether or not that were true, you continue to fail to explain how we uphold our treaty obligations when getting involved in a squabble between two signatories to that treaty.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You're the one missing the points, and no surprise there. I asked you a series of questions, without personal comments, to which you responded snidely, with a personal comment . . . and no answers to the questions. You have only grudgingly had it dragged out of you that you are not favoring Columbia over the other nations, and i strongly suspect that your original opinion was that we should ride off to Columbia's aid, and the devil take the hindmost. Whether or not that were true, you continue to fail to explain how we uphold our treaty obligations when getting involved in a squabble between two signatories to that treaty.

I mentioned Columbia simply because we do have US military installations there, and we also (as of 2002) have some installations in Venezuela.

As for what our obligations might be, I suggest you read articles 5 thru 9 of the treaty, to see exactly what we can or cant do.
Iam wondering how we fulfill our obligations under those articles when we have other treaties and agreements with all of the parties involved.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Setanta wrote:
You're the one missing the points, and no surprise there. I asked you a series of questions, without personal comments, to which you responded snidely, with a personal comment . . . and no answers to the questions. You have only grudgingly had it dragged out of you that you are not favoring Columbia over the other nations, and i strongly suspect that your original opinion was that we should ride off to Columbia's aid, and the devil take the hindmost. Whether or not that were true, you continue to fail to explain how we uphold our treaty obligations when getting involved in a squabble between two signatories to that treaty.

I mentioned Columbia simply because we do have US military installations there, and we also (as of 2002) have some installations in Venezuela.

As for what our obligations might be, I suggest you read articles 5 thru 9 of the treaty, to see exactly what we can or cant do.
Iam wondering how we fulfill our obligations under those articles when we have other treaties and agreements with all of the parties involved.

The OAS has weighed in on this matter.

The Organization of American States (OAS), approved today a resolution that contains agreement principles that will clear the way for bringing Ecuador and Colombia closer together; names a Commission to be headed by the OAS Secretary General to visit both nations; and convenes a meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Americas, to study the situation produced by the incursion of Colombian troops into Ecuadorian territory, incorporating to its analysis elements that will arise from the tour of the diplomatic group led by José Miguel Insulza.

During a special session of the Permanent Council, which started yesterday afternoon, worked until early morning and continued its debates this afternoon, the member countries entrusted the OAS Secretary General to head a high-level Commission, composed of four OAS ambassadors, to hold talks with authorities from both nations and later submit a report to the Foreign Ministers, who will meet in Washington on March 17.
In thanking the parties involved and the Permanent Council representatives for reaching the agreement, the Secretary General noted that it demonstrates that multilateral organizations "always have an important value, when the people working in them act in good faith and good will."

"Those who are here believe in international law because in many cases that is what allows us to survive, work and relate with one another. And we do so because we love our countries, love our Americas and because we know that when all the lights are turned off, when all conflicts end, or the conflicts that we live today and rhetoric are reduced, our people, our men and women will have to continue to live together," Insulza said.

"That is the reason of our concern for this conflict. That is the reason for our concern for the language, for the encounters, for the troop movements, for the words that sometimes give the impression that we are at the brink of an uprising. But finally, we are not the ones who are going to pay for those words, nor pay for those conflicts. The human beings that live in those regions who have to coexist with one another will be the ones that pay," stated Insulza.

http://www.oas.org/OASpage/press_releases/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-067/08

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I mentioned Columbia simply because we do have US military installations there, and we also (as of 2002) have some installations in Venezuela.

As for what our obligations might be, I suggest you read articles 5 thru 9 of the treaty, to see exactly what we can or cant do.
Iam wondering how we fulfill our obligations under those articles when we have other treaties and agreements with all of the parties involved.

Well, i did express what i consider would be a plausible means to remove the source of contention between the two nations (Chavez can rot, for as much as i care, and i suspect he is fouling his own nest by alienating the very people who elected him). FARC can find sanctuary in Ecuador because they (the Ecuadorans) aren't prepared to deal with what is a sophisticated insurrectionary organization with literally generations of experience, including active combat experience. If we were to apply the same policy criterion in Ecuador which has lead us into Columbia, we would provide to them the military aid and training, and policing methods training, and drug-enforcement training which would allow them both to evict FARC from their territory, and cut down or eliminate the source of coca for the drug trade.

However, if this (or any other) administration is unwilling to take such steps (and i personally would consider nothing else to be sensible), then i revert to my original position, which is to mind our own business.

0 Replies

The truth is that the United States has done a great deal to protect Equador from unruly neighbors (chiefly Peru) and its own foolishness over the past decade. Unfortunately Equadorean government(s) have become increasingly unstable and inept over the past 15 years and, as Setanta has suggested, are unable to deal effectively with a relatively sophisticated and entrenched movement such as FARC, which does indeed operate on its territory and uses those bases to attack Colombia.

It is an open question whether direct U.S. aid to Equador could help at all. Moreover the political stance of the current government with respect to Chavez' "Bolovarian movement" makes it likely that any such effort would backfire.

The legal questions here are not so clear as they are portrayed by some. While Equador has a right to be unmolested in its territory, it also has an obligation to see to it that its territory is not illegally used by others (such as FARC) to harm neighboring nations. If it fails to meet that obligation, then Colombia has the right to act in self-defense. None of these rights and obligations are absolute - acceptable solutions depend on the specifics of the matter, proportionality and how things are done. The same principles apply to any supposed treaty obligations some may construe us to have.

Chavez has already started to tone down his rhetoric . He can ill afford to lose Colombian food imports or to take on its military at their common border. While the cheering of Nicaragua and Cuba may bouy him up, he gets little support from the serious and important nations of the region, from Mexico to Brazil and Peru.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

If all that you claim about Ecuador is true and its prospects for dealing with FARC and coca are so poor, O'George, then i'll go to my fallback position, which is to mind our own business. There is no way that we have any business becoming directly embroiled in border skirmishes or open war between any two OAS members unless and until invited to do so as a part of a "pan-OAS" force.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

If all that you claim about Ecuador is true and its prospects for dealing with FARC and coca are so poor, O'George, then i'll go to my fallback position, which is to mind our own business. There is no way that we have any business becoming directly embroiled in border skirmishes or open war between any two OAS members unless and until invited to do so as a part of a "pan-OAS" force.

I don't claim to know for sure. One of my main sources is my #2 son (a Navy SEAL officer) who spent 12 months on the Ecuadorean/Peruvian frontier, occasionally as part of a Brazil-led multi-national force working to suppress the conflict between the two countries, and later in the security forces in Colombia. He was struck by the careless brutality of the opposing forces (led by self-serving officers and manned largely by illiterate, frightened pesants); the nutty unpredictability of the Equadoreans; and the cynical timidity of the multi-national force.

Clearly the Colombian government believes (or merely asserts) that the Equadoreans cannot or will not limit the FARC's use of their territory. In addition the Colombian government appears to at last be achieving some success in isolating and crushing some detachments of the FARC. I believe the evidence is fairly clear that Chavez has, at some level, begun to assist the FARC, perhaps as a means of weakening opponents of his vision of an Andean/Bolivarian movement led, of course, by himself.

I believe the situation will be favorably resolved in time without any significant action or intervention by the United States. Minding our own business, in that case, will be both praiseworthy and sufficient.

0 Replies

You should go over to Walter's thread on this topic, where Fbaezr has posted a brief description of the posturing, sabre-ratttling, and cheek-kissing among the principle parties today.

Teapot tempest weather, it seems.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the evidence is fairly clear that Chavez has, at some level, begun to assist the FARC, perhaps as a means of weakening opponents of his vision of an Andean/Bolivarian movement led, of course, by himself.

I would only quibble with this to say that it is well known that Chavez has been treating FARC as valued clients for the last few years. As for his delusions of grandeur, i would only observe that i'd be hilariously amused to think that he merely had delusions of adequacy. I claim no expertise, but quite a few of the pundits whom i've read or heard in the last few months claim that Chavez has begun to alienate the constituency which elected him. He may not be long for this world, politically speaking, at least.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I would only quibble with this to say that it is well known that Chavez has been treating FARC as valued clients for the last few years. As for his delusions of grandeur, i would only observe that i'd be hilariously amused to think that he merely had delusions of adequacy.

I was trying to understate my proposition a bit. I agree with this.

Setanta wrote:

I claim no expertise, but quite a few of the pundits whom i've read or heard in the last few months claim that Chavez has begun to alienate the constituency which elected him. He may not be long for this world, politically speaking, at least.

Nor do I. Hard to tell how long he will last, but he has certainly demonstrated the tendency to kill the political (and economic) geese that lay his golden eggs. I'll check out the other thread.

0 Replies

(Posted the same on my thread)

All settled by now ...

... with a hanshake, pointing to some quite until now unknown South American unity, I think.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

(Posted the same on my thread)

All settled by now ...

... with a hanshake, pointing to some quite until now unknown South American unity, I think.

If you believe this is or will become a lasting change in the policies or ambitions of these nations, I think you should do some more reading of their history.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

If you believe this is or will become a lasting change in the policies or ambitions of these nations, I think you should do some more reading of their history.

I admit that exams for my history degree were more focused on the time between 1400 until 1600 Embarrassed

:wink:

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Clearly the Colombian government believes (or merely asserts) that the Equadoreans cannot or will not limit the FARC's use of their territory.

A realistic stance, as they cannot do it either on their own soil..

0 Replies

War in S. America? - What is our Obligation if any

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know