Venezuela: "Colombia must send a non-aggression signal"

[spanza]

Ramón Carrizález, Venezuela's Vice President and Defense Minister, said that the Colombian government is the one that should send a signal that "it is not preparing to attack Venezuela," because President Hugo Chávez "has always extended his hand (to the neighboring country) but they have bitten it."

"Colombians are the ones who should send a signal and stop the aggressions that have been taking place (in Venezuela), such as spying (its territory), supporting paramilitary groups, attacking Venezuela directly or through its allies," Carrizález said after being asked about the possibility of holding bilateral meetings to overcome the diplomatic crisis.

The Vice President said that the opinion of former Colombian President Ernesto Samper concerning "the pre-war situation" with Venezuela is "respectable." "Samper stated this because he is aware of what is happening in his country about the US military bases," Carrizález concluded.


http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/11/06/en_pol_esp_colombia-must-send_06A3012131.shtml

[Bacchus39]

1. not wanting to pick sides

I would hate to see any agression. But sending 15,000 troops to the border and demanding a nonagression move seems somewhat ironic perhaps. on the other hand, I have no problem with the government stepping up security in the border region.

Not wanting to excuse Colombia with all its issues and problems but is Colombia a convenient scapegoat for the Venezuelan government???

[Zorro]

2. Wouldn't be the first time

that a government diverted attention from internal problems by claiming they're being threatened by their neighbor.

[EFerrari]

3. Except in this case as you well know, most of Latin America

joins Venezuela in its objection.

But nice try.

[Braulio]

4. You are mixing the topics, aren't you?

It seems you've mixed two topics:

One is whether Colombia should have signed a treaty with the USA to allow use of its bases by Americans. I suspect the majority of Latin American governments believes it's not sanitary to let the USA have right to the bases,

Two is whether Colombia is threatening Venezuela with war. I suspect they think it's Chavez raising tensions and threatening war, rather than Uribe.

What Chavez seems to be doing is a typical ploy used by governments to divert attention from internal problems. For example, Bush's popularity went way up when the USA was attacked on 911. The Argentina military junta were like Jesus Christ Superstar in 1982, when the public thought they had won the Malvinas war. Both suffered later, as their popularity dropped once the people realized the wars were being lost - or were lost outright in the case of Argentina.

What are Chavez' internal problems? Inflation and crime are very high, they had to declare national emergencies in health care, electric power, and water supply, and the population is very polarized. The government has been taking on debt like there's no tomorrow. While their debt to GDP ratio is still very safe, the trends are ominous, and this is reflected in the very high interest rates Venezuelan bonds are paying - I read recently they are now approaching 18 %, close to junk bond status.

Meanwhile, oil production is slowly dropping, and internal consumption of heavily subsidized liquid fuels is increasing (some of it caused by a natural gas supply shortfall, which leads them to burn diesel and fuel oil to generate electricity, rather than gas). The government has been unable to reverse the trend thus far, and is afraid of ending fuel subsidies. Oil represents most of Venezuela's exports, so they seem to be in a serious bind.

This is what seems to drive the government to growl and spit towards Colombia - it's a way to get their followers distracted.