Did You Miss Hugo Chavez?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Bolivarian Imperialism | Foreign Affairs | Hugo Chavez — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Ever since the referendum offering Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez unlimited terms went down to defeat early this year, we have heard little from Latin America's favorite tinhorn dictator. Apparently fearing that we have forgotten all about him, Chavez has decided to burst back onto the international scene:
Venezuela President Hugo Chavez ordered tank battalions to the Colombian border and mobilized warplanes on Sunday after Colombian troops struck inside Ecuador in an attack on rebels.
He also ordered the shutting of Venezuela's embassy in Colombia and the withdrawal of all diplomatic staff in the dispute, warning Colombia's actions could spark a war in South America.
"Mr. Defense Minister, move me 10 battalions to the frontier with Colombia immediately, tank battalions," Chavez said on his weekly TV show. "The air force should mobilize. We do not want war."
Colombia's military said on Saturday troops had killed Raul Reyes, a leader of Marxist FARC rebels, during an attack on a jungle camp in Ecuador in a severe blow to Latin America's oldest guerrilla insurgency. The operation included air strikes and fighting with rebels across the frontier.
On Saturday, the anti-U.S. Chavez warned Colombia against doing the same in Venezuela because he would interpret it as a "cause for war." On Sunday, he said he would send Russian-made fighter jets into U.S. ally Colombia if its troops struck in Venezuela.
About the only good that can stem from all of this is that I can tell people "I told you so." It's always amusing to listen to Hugo Chavez denounce others for imperialism. No one in Latin America practices imperialist policies more fervently than he does.
Did You Miss Hugo Chavez? 34 Comments (0 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
When leadership in Russia changed from Yeltsin to Putin, things seem to have gotten worse in every part of the globe. We know Putin has been supporting Iran and through them the conflict in Israel, but I also wonder to what degree Russia has been involved in creating problems in the rest of the world.
Assuming Colombia is willing, and I think it probably would be, I'd immediately issue a release saying "If a single Venezuelan troop crosses the border into Colombia, we'll consider it an attack on our allies the Colombians, and prepare to deploy immediately to protect the sovereignty of our friends the Colombians."
What's more, I'd mean it.
Let's see what little Hugo blow hard thinks about THAT.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
He knows that the price of oil is our limiting factor (or so he thinks). He will continue to do as expected. What makes you think that he is concerned about the US now? He seems to think (and to some extent true) that he controls us via oil. All he has to do is wait until another Democrat is elected and he can do as he pleases.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
He's nuts if he thinks that. (Of course, he might actually be nuts...) The truth is we don't really need his oil, he can sell it to the Chinese or whomever and we can just buy it from Russia or Saudi Arabia or whomever.
It's true that whom he sells it to or whom we buy it from really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and we'd be concerned about the price of oil, but not that much. He might be right if he was gambling that we aren't going to invade and dispose of him personally, but that's hardly necessary. All we have to do is carpet bomb anything that comes near the Colombian border. Other then some minor market instability just based on uncertainty, that shouldn't even really affect oil, but it would still show him to be a paper tiger and us to be a real one.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I assumed that was a given...! Therefore, unpredictably, crazy, feelings of grandeur... heh... The problem for us and actually the rest of the market is that the oil flow stops. After all, we are one of the very few that can process his sour crude anyway...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
....before any unilateral action by the United States.
Oh...and the Columbian military DID cross the border into Ecuador to carry out their raid. I believe that action is probably in violation of one of the OAS rules itself...not to mention violating the border of another country.
Regardless, it's up to Ecauador to raise a complaint if they disapprove of Columbia's action. Ecuador can take it up with the OAS if that's the forum they would choose. However, I haven't seen an indication of Ecuador having a problem.
Chavez is simply creating a scene, but so long as they stay on their side of the border, there's nothing really illegal about it unless they allow the FARC to attack Columbia from Venezuela.
For Chavez to cross the border would be an act of war against Columbia. I wouldn't put it past Chavez to stage a causus belli which is why we'd better be keeping satelites watching.
You may not have seen any indication from Ecuador that they have a problem - ,a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/03/content_7703316.htm">but they do. Ecuador has moved thier troops to the border, closed their embassy in Columbia and filed a formal protest with the Columbia government.
While we of course will see Chavez as the dominating factor here, he isn't. The regioal tension is completely independent of him and any grandstanding he decides to take around it. The immediate tension can be diffused witht he right words and actions out of Bogota and Chavez isn't doing anyone any favors with his loudmouth but this is not simply a Chavez the lunatic event.
they have had thousands of their own killed and a government under threat of collapse for years. Colombia is an ally, no one else in the region is an ally. Colombia should not have to say jack squat to Ecuador or Chavestan.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Maybe your right - a country has no need to respect sovereignty when it is chasing terrorists, rebels or criminals. I'm not sure we would be so consistent on that line and I'm sure it will be tested again with Turkey in Iraq in the near future (another week this time and we would have been in a really tough spot).
But ultimately, it doesn't really matter if Ecuador sees it as an act of war (and it is an invasion of their land) and starts a border war in a region that has a long history of border wars, none of our views matter it will just be bad for the region.
something about Chavez, and we must stand by our only ally in the region. I admit we would not be consistent and are not consistent. But we accept it when Israel attacks terrorists in Gaza, and this is the same thing. Chavez is trying to control all of South America.
I don't think there will be a hot war there. I think we need to be ready to freeze ALL Venezuelan assets in this country and hopefully the EU as soon as a shot is fired.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
He is dangerous and a disaster - and we absolutely have to do something about him. But let's not let him dictate the terms of that - this is and should be between Columbia and Ecuador. If Chavez gets involved, and that drives us to get involved then the real losers are Ecuador and Columbia.
Mostly, it is a lot like a child - we should not react every time they do something designed to get a reaction.
We should be willing to cut off acceptance of oil from Chavez and see what happens. I might even be willing to go to the blockade level, but I don't really see the need to waste resources doing that when refusing his oil will be equally effective.
is miffed :
"Venezuela and Ecuador moved their armies to the Colombian border and shut down their embassies in Bogota, as tensions soared over Colombia's cross-border killing of a top Colombian FARC rebel in Ecuador...
An indignant Ecuador government complained that Saturday's raid violated its territorial sovereignty, and also recalled its ambassador to Bogota, warning that Colombia's actions might result in "ultimate consequences."
Correa also canceled a visit to Cuba to deal with the crisis at home, while Ecuador's foreign ministry lodged a formal protest with Bogota."
.
I think that qualifies as objecting.
But frankly, I don't particularly care about that since it appears to me that Columbia is acting as Chavez's puppet. Chavez is trying to negotiate a hostage swap of FARC terrorists held by the Columbians for hostages held by FARC. (Since FARC are effectively allies of Chavez, I don't regard this as a good faith action either.) From what I read in the Times (Washington that is) it sounds like Reyes wasn't the only high value target the Columbians got. In any event, the Columbian action has made it difficult for Chavez to negotiate with his allies for the release of hostages. All Chavez is looking for is something to feed to the NY Slimes to burnish his image.
The US position on this needs to be that the act of posting troops to the Columbian border heightens the possibility of US action to assist our allies, and the only thing that is going to reduce tensions is him pulling them back. Whatever the diplomatic niceties involved should be made if possible, and if not, well, diplomacy only goes so far and then you go for the big stick. Especially when the other guy is going for the little stick and pretending its a big one.
That's what I was thinking FARC is a well known band of terrorist thugs, I can't imagine it's OK under any set of rules for countries to defend them, especially if Colombia was in hot pursuit, I can't see how they are in the wrong.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
The fact that this group was in Ecuador does not mean that Ecuador was defending them or giving them aid.
And I doubt that the USA would sit quietly if Mexico or Canada launched a few air to ground missiles from helicopters or airplanes into US territory because they were in hot pursuit of thugs and the thugs happened to cross the US border in the process.
The situation would not be the same. The border region between Canada and the US is not essentially a demiliterized zone.
If dense jungle that was being used by Al Quada thugs along the U.S./Canadian border, and Canada was in hot pursuit of them, and launched a few rockets into the jungle to kill them, I don't think you'd hear a peep out of the US.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
If illegal aliens are a strike against our soveriegnty than armed military incursion certainly is - at the very least they owe us notification if not our permission.
Put up Bienvenue signs in the restaurants
And give them brochures on where to get their medical procedures done in a timely fashion.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I can just see people citing Canadian Bacon as a premonition raising M. Moore into some newfound level of 'legitimacy' as a political mind.
A. I've never bought in to this "invasion" BS when it comes to immigration, so you are trying that with the wrong person. They aren't the same thing at all.
B. No Quebecians to my knowledge have engaged in actively murdering thousands of other Canadians in an attempt to overthrow the government. If they had, I doubt we'd care if Canada launched a few rockets into some wooded areas of upstate New York to kill them if they had no other way.
C. Even if we did care, the situation would STILL be very different because the U.S. would be ready, willing and able to apprehend them or kill them and give them back to the Canadians if captured. That's all but certainly not the case here.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
If Canadian terrorists were making strikes from across the border into Canada, you'd better believe we'd have OUR troops out there trying to hunt them down, telling the Canadian government the whole time we would help them. We'd do that because it's our duty as good neighbors.
If you protect a terrorist group with your sovereignty, then you are giving them tacit approval for their actions. You are violating the sovereignty of the country who the terrorists are protecting.
If it's an issue of not being able to control your border, well, if you can't control it, then it's up to somebody else to do it.
After all, isn't that Barack Strangelove's approach to Pakistan?
what if terrorists harbored in Quebec had fired missiles into the World Trade Center.
The answer is we wouldn't give a rat's tail end about sovereignty and go kill them. Which is what Columbia did.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I have to wonder if he does attack Columbia what the US should do? I believe we need to defend one our allies cause if Columbia does fall the drug trade would increase significantly. However, can't you just see the Dems attacking Bush all day if he does.
If Colombia was under actual military assault from Venezuela, then nobody but the most lunatic anti-war dem would stand in the way. Most D's would be on Bush's side on that one.
HOWEVER, if he just gives money and arms to gurilla groups and sends Venezuelan fighters to help them, etc. then they can fight under the cloak of being "freedom fighters" who are opposing a "corrupt government" (not entirely untrue, Colombia does still have serious corruption problems, although it's improving), that would give Chavez enough cover that the less lunatic fringe D's would find it difficult to support Bush. That's the biggest danger.
Anyhow, I actually think even in that situation, I think it's probably unnecessary that we send our actual army down there. We can probably just supply Colombia with arms, send a few special forces guys to coordinate things, and they could take care of it themselves. At least I hope so, or this could really become a major problem.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Trust me the Dem's will pin it on Bush saying all his anti-Chavez provoked this instead of blaming it where it lies with anti-America Chavez
McCain wins 50 states scenario:
Chavez launches an attack into Columbia a couple weeks before the US election. Bush orders our military to defend our ally according to our treaty obligations and the Dems, particularly Obama, Reid, and Pelosi scream through the MSM megaphone about the war monger in office. McCain strongly backs the President and declares our need to stand with allies against terrorists (assuming it wasn't a joint statement from Bush and McCain in the first place). I mean, if that were the situation even I'd vote for McCain, and I despise the politician.
out of hand in multiple places. Signs of the times...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."