Argentina's President Cristina Fernández Kirchner is taking the side of Ecuador in its dispute with Colombia over the violation of Ecuador's territory in a recent military action against the FARC guerrilla group. She says that its especially important for Latin American leaders to condemn such a violation of their neighbors sovereignty: Cristina Kirchner remarcará en Caracas su condena a ColombiaClarín 05.03.08. She made the remarks during a visit to Venezuela, where she signed a food-for-oil agreement with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
Hopefully this situation will be resolved without war. But it's more serious than saber-rattling. Ecuador and Venezuela have withdrawn their diplomats from Colombia over the incident. Ecuador and Colombia have at least agreed on calling for an investigation by the Organization of American States (OAS).
It's not that Cristina Fernández is any fan of the FARC. On Tuesday, she called "a toda la región latinoamericana al compromiso con la paz y con la liberación de Ingrid Betancourt y los rehenes en Colombia" (on the whole Latin American region for compromise for peace and for the liberation of Ingrid Betancourt and the hostages in Colombia). She has made a special cause of getting Betancourt, a former Colombian presidential candidate, freed. There were big demonstrations just a few weeks ago all across Latin America and in Spain demanding the release of the hostages still being held by FARC.
But she also said, "Creo que es muy importante la condena unánime a la violación de la soberanía territorial, que no puede tener ningún pretexto. No puede haber ninguna causa" (I think it's very important to have a unanimous condemnation of the violation of sovereign territory, which can have no pretext. The can be no [legitimate] cause). She said of the mood in the region over the confrontation, "Es una tensión que no recuerdo en mucho tiempo" (it's a tension that I don't remember having for a long time).
Brazil's President said, "Si permitimos que una violación territorial siga ocurriendo sin que haya una acción conjunta de todos los países, mañana cualquier frontera puede ser violada, y hay gente que cree que no necesita dar explicaciones" (If we permit a territorial violation to continue occurring without all countries together having taken joint action, tomorrow any frontier could be violated, and there are people that believe they have no need to give explanations). (my emphasis) (Acercamiento entre Colombia y Ecuador: acuerdan en la OEA conformar una comisión investigadoraClarín 05.03.08)
Gee, I wonder who he might have in mind in that last comment?
And there's a weird twist. People who have followed the Cheney-Bush administration's policies toward Iraq and Iran may have a hard time avoiding a sense of deja vu on this one. Secret incriminating documents found on laptop computers? A terrorist group trying to get a dirty bomb? The #2 man in a terrorist organization killed? (Actually, it seems to be the #3 man in Al Qa'ida that we keep killing over and over.)
The incident that caused the current crisis involved a mililtary operation against FARC that supposedly killed their #2 man, Raul Reyes. His laptop, so the Colombian government claims, had some secret documents, as Tyler Bridge and Jenny Carolina Gonzalez report for McClatchey, Colombia: Rebel documents talk of uranium offer 03/04/08.
There was no independent verification of the documents, but Colombia has said it would allow experts from the Organization of American States to examine the computers involved.
The most stunning information in the documents involves uranium, which can be used by terrorists for so-called "dirty bombs" in which conventional explosives disperse radioactive materials that people then inhale.
"Another of the themes is the one on uranium," says a Feb. 16 note from someone identified only as Edgar Tovar to Raul - most likely Reyes.
"There's a man who supplies me with material for the explosive we prepare, and his name is Belisario and he lives in Bogota," the note says. "He sent me the samples and the specifications and they are proposing to sell each kilo for two and a half million dollars, and that they supply and we look for someone to sell to, and that the deal should be with a government that can buy a huge amount. They have 50 kilos ready and can sell much more."
Colombian Vice President Francisco Santos said in a statement Tuesday that the letter proves the FARC was "negotiating to get radioactive material, the principal base for making dirty weapons of destruction and terrorism."
Until there is some kind of independent verification, it certainly would be advisable to be cautious about believing this story. Acting on fake information about "weapons of mass destruction" can cause a country a lot of problems.
Also, even though the "war on drugs" has faded from the headlines, Colombia still ranks as the fifth largest recipient of American aid after Iraq, Israel, AFghanistan and Egypt, most of it law-enforecement and military related. In 2002, Congress dropped previous restrictions that had (officially) prevented assistance from going to non-drug-related military operations.
If you wanted to justify your country on a action that has basically the rest of Latin American united against you with a threat of a shooting war with two neighborhing countries over it, it's certainly timely and convenient to show that the action yielded useful information. In fact, according to Colombia's Santos, "This shows that these terrorist groups ... constitute a grave threat not just to our country but to the entire Andean region and Latin America."
And it doesn't hurt to show any members of the US Congress who might be nervous about American aid being used to support Colombia in operations that seriously tick off the rest of Latin America that, wow, it's all for the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) is a nice selling point. What's the White House's position on all this? White House spokeswoman Dana Perino in her March 5 press briefing says ... the problem is Venezuela:
Q Venezuela is saying today that it's deploying tank battalions and air and sea forces toward the Colombian border and its crisis there. What's the level of U.S. concern on that? And is there any chance that the U.S. would be offering military assistance to it's ally, Colombia?
MS. PERINO: I think that's a little bit premature. I don't - we do not have independent confirmation of that claim of the troop movements down in that area. So I'm not able to say. I think it's premature to say that there would be any need for military help. We do believe that Colombia and Ecuador should be able to work this out between themselves. We don't see any need for a country that wasn't involved to be a part of it. We do think it's curious that a country such as Venezuela would be raising the specter of military action against a country who was defending itself against terrorism. I think that says a lot about Venezuela.
And what President Bush said to [Colombian] President Uribe yesterday is that we are going to stand strong with our ally; that we support their democracy; and their move to free enterprise. And when the President asked President Uribe, what's the most important thing that we can do for you right now, President Uribe said that it is to work with the Congress to pass the free trade agreement, because that will show that there is a different path from the drug trade that Colombia had been mired in, in the past. They've have made tremendous strides. They have reduced their poverty rate by 20 percent. It used to be the murder capital of the world; it no longer is.
There are many different things that President Uribe has done in order to help the situation in Colombia. And now he says that one of the most important things that we can do is help pass the free trade agreement, which would not only help our businesses, but also improve - make sure that our national security is secure. (my emphasis)
Borders, smorders, we violate them all the time, who cares? By the way, we should pass another "free" trade agreement for the benefit of corporations in order to support the war against terrorism. Or drugs. Or Venezuela. Whatever.
It's sad. The Cheney-Bush government apparently couldn't even manage to grumble a few hypocritical words against the idea of one country invading another's territory. So, let's see, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, basically all of Latin America are very concened about the sovereignty question in this matter. The US government's attitude is, what the heck, they were killin' terrorists. Who cares what silly little country that might have had to invade in the process? Just approve the free trade agreement we want and shut the hell up about it.
Why do they hate us? So much of the world, that is. It's just unfathomable! What possible reasons might they have?
