It's war! Or maybe not

As you may have heard, the governments of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela may or may not be on the brink of war following a Colombian incursion into Ecuadorean territory. "Tensions haven’t been this high since 1987, when Colombia sent a naval vessel to Venezuela’s Gulf of Maracaibo to stake a short-lived claim to an offshore island," writes The Times’ Chris Kraul from Bogota. Ambassadors have been recalled, borders closed. And, in yet another display of the political theater for which he is famous, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ordered military mobilizations during his "Hello, Mr. President" talk show on Sunday. "Mister Minister of Defense, send me 10 battalions to the Colombian border. Immediately," the president commands. Said minister, a uniformed general sitting in the audience, rises to his feet and acknowledges the order — just like in the movies!

All of this war fever reminds this writer of many wars and non-wars of Latin America’s recent past. There was the famous 1969 "Soccer War" between El Salvador (which really wasn’t about soccer at all), and the 1982 Falklands-Malvinas war: I visited the battlefields of the latter conflict in December 2001 and January 2002 and wrote about it here. My journey through the Falklands (still littered then with mines and rusting armaments) and discussions with Argentine veterans brought home the human cost behind the seemingly trivial and farcical roots of that war.

But sometimes all the bluster is just bluster. I remember being about 14 and taking a train ride with my father in London during our first European vacation circa 1977. We entered a station where one of the British tabloids had a headline that screamed in mock horror "It’s war!" Guatemala had just sent a tank or two to the border with British Honduras. My father, a Guatemalan immigrant, gave me the quick rundown of Guatemala’s claim to the British territory and concluded: "We’re not going to war with the British. That would be a disaster. It’s all just a joke."

The Venezuela-Colombia-Ecuador dispute is no joke. But perhaps it will end just as inconsequentially as Guatemala’s claim to the now independent country of Belize.

-- Héctor Tobar in Mexico City

Comments

[Pita]

Charles makes a good point-that in any unstable country
usually the poor are the ones who suffer However. I believe that despite Uribe's faults, he is ultimately good for all people
in Colombia. Unlike both his populist neighbor Chavez, and unlike the telenovella
styled Correa, Uribe is controlled, decisive
and effective. Technically, it was illegal to overstep the
borders of Equador. However, this decisive and effective strike eliminated many criminals who terrorized ordinary citizens. Democracy and prosperity cannot flourish in
chaos. Hopefully now, Uribe will disband and disarm
the right wing paramilitary.

[Burt Long]

Long Live Free Colombia!!!

The disagreement is between Ecuador and Colombia.

As the King of Spain said to Chavez...."Why don't you shut up!!!!".

[Charles]

Regarding President Uribe, most bourgeois, middle-class colombians say he's the best thing that's ever happened to the nation. People can go to their country clubs and pleasure home 'fincas', shop at luxury malls, hire three maids,send their kids to bilingual private schools all without having to worry about crime and violence.

And without having to be reminded of the other 70% of their compatriots living in poverty, displaced and crushed by Uribe's internal war machine and market economics. The issue is not as black and white as implied in most of these posts.

[JOSE]

IM FROM PANAMA AND THOSE FARC TERRORIST HAS VIOLATED A LOT OF TIMES THE PANAMENIAN TERRITORY TO KILL PANAMENIANS BECAUSE OF THEIR DRUGS BUSINESS AND IF VENEZUELA OR ECUADOR LET THOSE TERRORIST USE THEIR TERRITORY THEN THE COLOMBIAN ACTIONS ARE VERY WELL JUSTIFIED AND FURTHER ACTIONS ARE REQUIRED.

[Jenny Bueno]

Palomudo: For your information, I am Colombian!!! and althought I lived in the United States, I keep myself pretty well informed, and that does not only include CNN. I also have almost ALL my entire family still living in Colombia, which also informes me of how the situation REALLY is and who the bad guys are. Perhaps, you ought to check who provides such misguided information to your resources. Anyway, the real problem here is not who is right or wrong, but what is really important to the people in COlombia and how can we all help them solve their problems. I truly believe that harboring and paying terrorists is NOT the best idea! Wouldn't you agree? One last question: Why haven't the other South American countries made a protest in reagrds to Chavez' behavior? Such a fast reponse to the killing of a narcoterrorist, but not to the one paying/supporting them?

[eric]

dgfurman, good point...what is your solution, other than a inevitable full-blown war? More of these irritable skirmishes will continue to plague the region as it has since these Spanish-speaking states became independent from their Spanish colonial masters.

No, disrespect but there doesn't seem to be a dominant Spanish speaking nation with enough success moderating foreign policy within the region.

Take for example, Japan spearheaded the domino effect in the aftermath of its economic superpower status in the 1980's and on. Directly or indirectly, the economies of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and mainland China have enjoyed the wave - sort of speak.

In Europe, the economy of Germany and its profound leadership on the continent, has been the nucleus of decisional factors of the European Union. France and Britain, the traditional world powers ot eh continent have diplomatically taken a supporting role, for the good of the union.

In the Arab World, the defacto moderator would likely be Egypt. The Egyptians have elevated to be the voice of reason that stabilizes constant skirmishes - or not - which has plagued the region since the creation/re-creation of the state of Isreal in 1948.

Tell me, which Spanish-speaking state can be this de-facto leader of sorts. Please don't tell me we all should get along and one sovereign state should not have to be the regional leader. Doesn't work that way. Look at the past 200 years of history within the Latin American region (that did not involve U.S. influence and intervention).

Soccer war? Please...that's how petty Latin America's governments are viewed to global onlookers.

[ed]

It's like the U.K., Canada and the U.S. having a border war by land and sea. Three members of the same family having a disagreement.

Maybe if you were more cohesive as a unit instead of 18 independent and separate nations, your region may be more prosperous economically, politically, socially and respected globally. Maybe the U.S. had something to do with your stagnant state of existence. The underlying cancer to you as a whole are skirmishes like these.
Quit blaming the U.S. for everything and as a battle cry for a common enemy when you can't even co-exist amongst your own brethren. Start pointing your fingers amongst yourselves. This anti-yankee thing is getting really, really, OLD!

The abuse of the British crown is what managed to unify its English speaking states known as the original 13 colonies. Likewise, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama and Ecuador come from the same womb...Viceroyalty of New Granada...yet you've managed to stay weak-links because of your selfishness not to form a federation, with one sole leader.

So GROW UP South/Latin America! Blame your impotency because of political division and self-gratification, oppose to sacrificing selfish individual power for one federal unit with 18 states. Maybe then, and only then you as a unit can become a letigimate global power.

[dgfurman]

I cannot believe the incredibly ignorant comments about Latin America. Colombia is about the size of 3 US states. Mexico borders the US, not S. America, where Colombia is. In between Mexico and Colombia lies all Central America. If a war breaks out b/t Colombia and its neighbors (which I don't think it will), ALL of S. America will be involved. That is an ENTIRE continent. And believe me, the effects WILL spill over into the US economy if all of S. America is at war. It is in everyone's best interest that this dies down and is resolved peacefully.

[Fabio]

No one is above the law! (that include nations). Under no circunstances any country should invade other because of sovereignty. Uribe has become a satellite of foreign interests (Bush behind).

[ed]

How different Latin America would be if they formed a federal government similar to the 50 states that form the union. United we stand, divided we fall...the latter describes Latin America, in all aspects - politiically, militarily, culturally, and socially.

I wonder how many people are aware that the original 13 U.S. colonies were just as different and diverse in all aspects of "individual" sovereign states, before the declaration of independence. The colonists had the sense to know as a unified contingent, were their only realistic chance of defeating and ousting the British. Why did the forefathers of original Viceroyalties of Latin America not listen to Simon Bolivar?

United we stand, divided we fall, can also be a comparison/contrast analogy of the economic and political development of the United States and Latin America since the 1800's.

Venezuelan troops having a stand-off against Colombian troops. Why not have two mothers who are sisters fight to the death too? It's sad and silly.

[al]

Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia? Most Americans would think they were part of Mexico...aren't they? They all look the same and speak the same.

It's like New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio going at it. So, this skirmish is important, how?

[dgfurman]

Palomudo, you are the misinformed one. I live in Colombia, and I can tell you that Uribe has been the best thing for this country. Since he has been leading the country, the crime rate is down and the economy is better. Altho there may have been some members of his family that weren't squeaky clean, he has been working hard trying to improve the quality of lives of Colombians, and the Colombians notice and appreciate the changes.

The FARC is nothing but a bunch of leftist narcoterrorists, and have killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children, and continue to do so, not to mention the drugs that they are trafficking. The problem that Colombia has is that it's next door neighbors are not only allowing these terrorists to have safe haven, they are also in some instances, aiding them with $, supplies, etc. How can the Colombian govt. successfully protect its people from the FARC when the neighbors are doing what they can do destroy that process? Had Peru and Chile been our neighbors, we would never be in this position, but b/c the govts. of Venezuela and Ecuador seem to think that the Colombian people should be living in harmony with those that steal their land, their possessions, kill their families, and force them to grow coca, we're having problems with them. I hope it will come to a peaceful solution.

[jc]

It's evident how the world looks at Latin America. Why is this story not on the front pages of the L.A. Times? Should Germany skirmish with France, it makes headlines. Should China blow-up a Japanese ship, that will make headlilnes. Should Iraq and Iran attack Syria, that will make headlines. But Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia at odds? What, we'll pay more for fruits and less influx of illegal narcotics into the U.S.?

Here's a far-fetched solution, have the U.S. military intervene. Now that will make headlines. Please Mexico, take care of your OWN back yard and show the world what you can do instead of blaming anything and everything on U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. has more important things to do, like vote for a new president and think about what to wear to work tomorrow.

[robinia]

Should not Mexico intervene should this skirmish turn out to be a full-blown war?

[al]

Interesting development. This effects the first world how?

[pablo]

Here's a chance for the Mexican government to develop as a world leader in diplomacy. The Mexican military and its economic muscle could definitely defuse this skirmish...Hey, why not, they've always wanted to a superpower similar to their neighbors of the north. Put your peso where your mouth is. C'mon, a Latin American skirmish? Two words, WHO CARES!

[jamesol]

If I was a father of a few kids who ran away and lived with my neighbor in their yard and my neighbor shelters them, then proceeded to cross back and forth into my yard with intent to kill or harm my other sons and daughters peacefully playing in my yard, I will definitely cross my neighbor's fence in the middle of the night and inflict harm or death to stop those runaway kids from their terroristic acts. No matter that my neighbor will protest. I am not there to claim their land anyway. I will pull back after I do what I need to do. I will do this to protect my children who abides with the law of my house. And I am willing to face the consequences of the law, in this case, diplomatic blahs.

[Palomudo]

Jenny, want don't you investigate a bit and inform yourself on the Colombiam 50 year old civil war before passing judgement on the FARC, I assume you just believe everything you read in the public news, do you know who control it? I guess not.

Colombian president is a well known and recognized dru dealer, here is a link from the US government confirming it, why is he friendly with the US gov,? because the CIA controls the drug trade and Bush is another narco terrorist.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/index.htm

The real bad guys are what you would consider the good guys, because cnn and newspaper tell you so.

[Coya Pacsa]

Jenny Bueno:I wonder how you would feel if Canadian or Mexican military troopers crossed the border into the US to kill a "rebel". Have you ever heard of territorial sovereignty? Why should Ecuador allow anyone to unilaterallly invade their soil? I would not want any of my neighbors invading my house under any pretenses.

[Jenny Bueno]

What seems amazing is that these countries are protesting for something that will do more good than bad for a lot people in the world. Or is it that geting rid of a dangerous narcoterrorist is not everybody's concern? As far as I understand, no people form Ecuador were harmed, nor soil was damaged. WHat is it that they are in fact protesting? Maybe tha fact that they want these bad people inside their countries,s o they can produce them money from drugs and narcoterrorists acts? Can the rest of the worl be so blind too? IF we all have to unite and help whomever wants to get rid of these dangerous narcoterrorists then be it, but standing up and no doing anything or what is worst doing the wrong thing should be a crime against humanity.