Venezuela-Colombia renew diplomatic relations

[rabs]

Just announced by Foreign Minister Maria Angelica Holguin and JM Santos.
Live on Telesur as write this.

[rabs]

1. Some of the details

Live broadcast on Telesur just finished. Three-hour session. Nestor Kirchner of UNASUR also was there.

Col and Ven issued a five-point communique establishing joint commissions to oversee:

Points 1, 2 and 3 to re-establish cross-frontier commercial ties, especially in the border region.
Point 4 agree to create common infrastructure projects.
Point 5 agree to boost security on border. Chavez says he will not allow any illegal groups (FARC, ELN, rightwing paramilitaries and narco-traffickers on Venezuelan territory).

-- Ambassadors to be exchanged as soon as possible, within hours.

-- Santos; turning the page today, starting from zero.

-- Chavez: agreements today must be carefully nourished and protected against "rumors, coordinates, and media reports."

-- Chavez; there are people in Venezuela, Colombia and abroad (USA without saying it) who with lies and intrigue want the accords today to fail.

-- About uribe's accusations against Chavez at the ICC, Chavez said they were "a joke."

-- On U.S. bases in Colombia, Chavez said okay as long as they did not threaten the sovereignty of Colombia's neighbors.

-----------------------

Speaking of uribe, alvarito is bugging out of Colombia.

Today he asked the Colombian Contress to grant him permission to be out of the country for the rest of this year. Colombian law says it is mandatory that ex-presidents have to seek that permission.

He arrived in New York today to be part of the U.N. four-person panel that will investigate the Israeli commando raid on the Turkish ferry.

----------------------------

edit to explain why uribe has to seek permission to leave the country. And to add photo.

[gbscar]

2. I'm shocked and saddened by this. Oh well, the Popular Struggle for Liberation is yet to come (nt)

[Peace Patriot]

3. I don't understand your comment. You want war? Please explain. nt

[gbscar]

5. I was being sarcastic, actually. (nt)

[Peace Patriot]

4. Very, very interesting that Nestor Kirchner was there.

He is the one who said--when the Bush Junta sent down their dictate to Latin American leaders that they must "isolate Chavez": "But he's my brother!"

I was a bit worried about this meeting going forward as a bilateral meeting, and not in the context of UNASUR. Preventing a regional war, dealing with the U.S. efforts to militarize the region, and to re-conquer and dominate the region for U.S. multinational corporations, needs collective strength. I was also reminded of the U.S./Uribe treachery, back in 2007-2008, when Chavez went the extra mile to prevent hostilities with Colombia--even in the face of extreme provocation (a plot to assassinate Chavez hatched within the Colombian military)--and got bushwhacked, so to speak (--agreed to Uribe's request that Chavez negotiate with the FARC for hostage releases, then found himself on the receiving end of accusations that he had dealings with the FARC and is a "terrorist lover"!).

I imagined that some of the many leaders who had offered to mediate between Venezuela and Colombia were working behind the scenes to prevent this fracas that Uribe caused from escalating. But I thought it was worrisome that Santos turned them down and insisted on meeting only Chavez--worrisome as to the above sort of treachery, and worrisome because, without formal involvement of an organization that includes the other leaders, what pressure is there on Santos to keep his word? In the case of the U.S.-instigated white separatist insurrection in Bolivia, in late 2008, it was the collective clout of UNASUR that was so powerful in backing up Evo Morales. What will Chavez do, if he goes home and the next morning Santos turns around and sends the Colombian military over the border "in pursuit of the FARC"? Santos is capable of doing that--and will do it without apology (unlike Uribe, who eventually apologized for the Ecuador incursion and promised that Colombia would never do such a thing again). That is what Santos said, about the Ecuador incident, that he would do it again. What are Chavez's options, if Santos did such a thing? There has been no meeting of UNASUR, no mediated negotiation, no resolution calling on both parties to adhere to the agreement, no formally signed/witnessed agreement--no formal collective strength to fall back on. Chavez can order the Venezuelan military to shoot back, or acquiesce to a violation of Venezuela's territory.

I still have this worry. But I'm glad to see that a third party--a representative of the other leaders, and a Venezuelan ally--was present. Kirchner was a good choice--highly respected, doesn't currently hold political office (termed out as president of Argentina), so he can take the longer view of things, very committed to a peaceful end of Colombia's long civil war, not a flashy sort of leader on whom cameras dwell--like Lula da Silva--but equally steadfast and intelligent.

I am very glad to see this agreement--as I would any agreement that might prevent the horrors of the Colombian military from spreading throughout the region. But I don't trust Santos, at all--nor the Pentagon, nor the fascists like John McCain, John Negroponte and Jim DeMint, who seem to be running U.S. policy in Latin America.

[gbscar]

6. I'm glad that at least you're recognizing Kirchner's presence as a positive, but...

-"That is what Santos said, about the Ecuador incident, that he would do it again."

Uribe didn't say he wouldn't do it again either, if he could somehow use a time machine to go back to 2008's Ecuador.

His point was that he wouldn't do it ever again in the future, from here on out, and that he was sorry.

Just as well, Santos stated that he would, in fact, repeat the 2008 attack. Not that he would go around bombing camps in the future.

I believe their positions on that point are actually closer than you'd think, for better or for worse.

I'd like to think neither Santos or, for that matter, the Pentagon are dumb enough to be under the illusion that Ecuador is Venezuela or vice versa.

Other than that...I can't believe you're speaking so (proportionally) kindly of Uribe, given that his (both real and alleged) mafia and paramilitary connections clearly outweigh those of Santos as far as existing records have demonstrated (not to mention Uribe's personal vendetta and horrible temper are self-evident). I'm actually willing to bet he is, in fact, the lesser evil of the two, not the other way around as you've been arguing. Not because of the "smiles" or what have you, but because of actual moves of his that seem to be comparatively positive or at least preferable. Santos might be politically ambitious and more of a hypocrite but I also think he's not entirely incapable of rational thought or keeping up appearances, to say nothing else. Naturally, if an invasion of Venezuela came to pass I'd eat my words, but I happen to think that's unlikely.

[Peace Patriot]

10. Hm. I don't know. I'm cogitating about the distinction you've made,

i.e., the qualified apology, that Santos did not contradict Uribe, on the Ecuador bombing/raid (Uribe apologizing and promising never to do it again, and Santos saying he WOULD do it again)--that both would do it again (that slaughter) but not in the future.

Have you heard/read of them speaking of this in such specific detail (--the time machine thing--they would both do it that bombing/raid again)? Or are you interpreting their words?

I really would like to know this. Did Uribe say that he would do THAT bombing/raid over again?

I do not, in any way whatsoever, mean to speak kindly of Alvaro Uribe. The analogy I've used to explain this, elsewhere--the difference I see between Uribe and Santos--is Bush Jr vs Donald Rumsfeld. Bush Jr was a puppet. Rumsfeld was not a puppet. Which one was more dangerous? Uribe behaved, at times, just like a puppet on a string. This was very noticeable in his dealings with Chavez, for instance, when he suddenly withdrew his request to Chavez to negotiate FARC hostage releases, days before the first hostages were to be released. It's like somebody extended a hook from Washington DC and yanked his collar. (In fact, I think that may well have been Rumsfeld--he had been ousted from the Pentagon, by that time, but wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that very week, saying that "Chavez's help is not welcome in Colombia"). Uribe would make up to Chavez, then he would turn around a commit some act of treachery. He was "erratic" (as The Economist recently described Uribe, but with no explanation). Santos is not erratic. If he decides to send a hit squad to take out Chavez, he will do everything he can to make sure they GET IT DONE and will never think twice about it and will never apologize in a four hour meeting if Chavez survives it.

Uribe seemed to care, at times, what other leaders thought of him. Or maybe it's just that he was inept--not a very good actor at carrying out his puppetmasters' orders. Santos has more command of himself, but I think his intentions are the same--and those intentions are very bad, indeed. He was the one who DESIGNED the bombing/raid on Ecuador--which I believe was a cold-blooded mass murder of sleeping people aimed directly at ending what was, at that time, an international effort to bring about a peace settlement in Colombia's 40+ year civil war. He was the one who would have colluded with Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans-in-exile" to concoct the "miracle laptops." It was on his watch as Defense Minister that the "false positives" scandal erupted and that massacres like the one in La Macarena occurred. He is just smoother, more sure of himself, than Uribe, and is biding his time.

If he has the filthy kind of connections that Uribe has, he has cleared his trail, and I do mean by murder. It is under Santos' watch as Defense Minister that the rightwing paramilitary death squads, closely tied to the Colombian military, were allowed to reorganize and continue their murders of trade unionists and others and their displacement of 5 MILLION peasant farmers from their land--to clear the lands for Monsanto, Chiquita, Occidental Petroleum & brethren, and for rich landowners and probably for the bigger, protected drug lords.

I would love to share in the hope that Colombians are in for some relief from these bloody-minded, fascist policies, and that Venezuela and the region will be spared Oil War II. But I'm afraid that it reminds me of the "New Nixon" and his bullshit about peace in Vietnam. It's POSSIBLE--not likely, but possible--that the CIA, Clinton and others oppose Pentagon war plans for the region, and think that our multinationals and war profiteers will be better served--can accomplish their "free trade for the rich" goals--with methods short of war. I have been hoping to see evidence of this, but then something like Honduras happens, or this sudden, odd Uribe accusation against Venezuela (which I think was dictated from Washington).

The democracy cosmetics that Clinton designed in Honduras is a bad harbinger. Now people there are being killed by death squads--teachers, trade unionists, community organizers--as well as in Colombia. My hope for the Obama administration's Latin American foreign policy pretty much ended with the Honduran coup. And is Santos anything other than a fully approved CIA appointment in Colombia, after that so-called election held amidst the mass graves of Colombia? He's too smart to say anything like Bush did ("Mission accomplished!"). It's the sort of thing Uribe would say--gloating over the slaughter of a hundred thousand innocent people. Not Santos. He is more circumspect, more careful, but he is the one who killed hopes for peace with ten 500 lb U.S. "smart bombs." He pulled the trigger.

Truly, I'm torn. I don't want this to be the case. But I don't see much hope that I am wrong.

[gbscar]

13. Let's see...there's a lot to talk about here.

It is my interpretation, yes, but based on what they did say. Not sure if these are the same exact declarations but here are some references.

Uribe's latest views on the subject, in July of this year (2010), had him repeating his apologies but reiterating that the attack was necessary.

http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/uribe-admite-que-bombardeo-contra-farc-en-ecuador-no-era-lo-ideal-420672.html

The bulk of his statements during the Rio Group summit back in 2008 were also along similar lines.

http://web.presidencia.gov.co/sp/2008/marzo/07/03072008.html

Santos said during a televised debate that the was proud of authorizing the attack along with Uribe, but he also said that it would be irresponsible to comment about the hypothetical scenario of bombing a FARC camp in Venezuela. Since the first part of first statement obviously created an uproar, he came out the next day and then explicitly said that he wouldn't repeat such an attack.

http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/politica/articulo199116-santos-aclaro-chavez-no-volveria-bombardear-un-vecino-atacar-farc

http://www.semana.com/noticias-elecciones-2010/candidatos-repetirian-ataque-farc-territorio-extranjero/137798.aspx

http://www.telesurtv.net/noticias/secciones/nota/70876-NN/uribe-rechazo-declaraciones-del-presidente-chavez-sobre-juan-manuel-santos/

I suppose having a full transcript of all relevant delarations would be preferable, but right now it would be for the best to move on the other points.

I'm not sure about your analogy myself, but at least I can see what you're trying to say.

Still...for one thing, the attack on the FARC camp in Ecuador was authorized by both Santos and Uribe, not just one or the other. Both of them are convinced, to this day, that it was necessary and they were responsible for the decision-making process along with the rest of the military high command (plus whatever role the U.S. played).

What's more...while I certainly didn't agree with that bombing raid myself, I don't share your optimism / idealism about the actual prospects of a negotiated peace as a result of the talks between Raúl Reyes and other international personalities. The basic point of those negotiations was to arrange conditions for the release of hostages, yes, but such efforts aren't necessarily going to be causally linked to a successful peace. It's simply a possible starting point since the relevant complications are, to say the least, far more numerous.

In fact, of all of those...I think Hugo Chávez's mediation back in 2007 was probably more likely to produce such results -in the long run and only after dealing with many other obstacles- than whatever gestures the remaining European contacts, whose main purpose was to release Ingrid Betancourt more than anything else, were arranging at the time of the bombing. In other words, it's a bit hard to speculate about what could or couldn't have happened without that attack but a certain dose of pragmatism is preferable in my opinion, as opposed to making it seem like everything would have been alright if only Raúl Reyes was still among the living today. I'm not a fan of bombing people in their sleep or of violating another nation's sovereignty in order to do so (although, strictly speaking, FARC was also violating Ecuador's borders since I don't believe the establishment of said camp had any diplomatic immunity or official authorization...ironically, perhaps if Correa had really been in cahoots with Reyes a formal permit could have made things easier in the grand scheme of things), but the matter has a fair amount of variables and unknowns.

The laptops...I feel like it should be possible to write an entire book about the scandal, many years down the line when it stops being a matter subject to the whims of current affairs, since I would say it's clear they have been misused, misrepresented and manipulated -making then suspect and with very little judicial value as evidence- but not necessarily "magical" in the dismissive sense. Suffice to say that I consider them half-truths, which are probably more dangerous than absolute lies or fabrications.

As for the horrors of La Macarena and, more broadly, the false positives scandal...I would say that both of them correspond to a culture of structural abuse and impunity that has been part of the Colombian Armed Forces for at least two decades, conceptually speaking, and, in the current context, involve the Uribe administration's policies taken as a whole rather than those of any of his six (!) Defense Ministers, of which Santos was the fourth. It's a bit macabre to go back and read old human rights reports but, suffice to say, I would argue this is required in order to approach the underlying nature of the problem.

The same thing goes for the cumulative total of displaced persons (5 MILLION, yes, if you add up all displacement since 1985 and leave it at that without really keeping up with what does or doesn't happen to old IDPs decades later), of which about half occurred during the Uribe administration but, just as well, it is a far more complex problem than what it sounds like on the surface and yet no less disgraceful.

I'm not going to claim that Santos is some kind of saint compared to Uribe, since he is undoubtedly someone who is proportionally responsible for much of what happened during his three year term as Defense Minister, but I trust you're aware of the fact that their personal backgrounds and those of their families are extremely different. Long before Uribe came to power, people knew that the guy's record was ugly as sin. It even disgusts me to go over the full details, so I'll spare us the effort and just call him a vindictive rural landowner closely linked to narco-trafficking and paramilitarism. That still doesn't make him inhuman, of course, but since the worst excesses of Colombia's violence have taken place in Medellín and the countryside I think the point is self-evident.

In the case of Santos, the worst thing you could have said about the guy a decade ago is that he was an urban oligarch from a historically wealthy family and that he conspired against Ernesto Samper by exploiting the government's crisis as a platform for a potential peace agreement and, naturally, his own political ambitions. It's almost like night and day, in a certain sense, so speculating about their respective trails and how they covered them might be stretching things a bit since their environments and interests aren't interchangeable, let alone their attitudes and upbringing if that matters. In this case, my position is essentially one of waiting and seeing rather than hyping or bashing Santos right now.

I suppose this conversation could go on forever, for any number of reasons, but it's time to wrap things up on my end. I don't consider the scenario you've described as impossible, not at all, but I ultimately think it's unlikely or at least open to debate. What is more likely then? I'm not entirely sure, to be perfectly frank, given the complexity of the situation and the existence of unknown and random factors alike (including human decisions and willpower since, if you forgive the cartoony imagery, not even the Pentagon is made up of unfeeling robots) that may or may not benefit the plans or intentions of those who would, in fact, engage in the kind of operations you're worried about. There is, after all, more than one way of accomplishing the same goals and war isn't always the only possible outcome.

[Peace Patriot]

14. Thank you for a most thought-provoking response and for the additional information

about Santos in particular. You are obviously a close observer of these events. My worries about the situation, I think, are greatly influenced by my own government, what it has done over the last decade, in the world in general, and of course what it has done historically to Latin America, as well as recently. I see nothing but the most egregious U.S. hypocrisy and egregiously bad U.S. policy everywhere I look in Latin American, serving the worst possible interests, and with all the lawlessness and horror we've witnessed in the use of this huge war machine, it seems almost inevitable to me that it will be used again for similar purposes--for sheer war profiteering, for stealing resources such as oil, and to impose "free trade for the rich" on a region that the U.S. government considers to be its "back yard" and that is increasingly rebellious about that status. And I don't think that, after a U.S. investment of $7 BILLION, there is any hope that a Colombian leader can be free of U.S. dictates, so if the warmongers here have their way, Santos will be obedient or Santos will not be president of Colombia any more. And I don't see any signs yet that Santos would want it otherwise. This accord with Venezuela may just be "smiley face" democracy cosmetics. The Colombian/Ecuadoran and Colombian/Venezuelan borders may be less of a tinderbox, in the short term, without having Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld (& Brownfield) running someone like Uribe. That does not mean that war plans are off; it may merely mean that such plans are smarter and more serious.

The signs from the U.S. government are not good, not good at all. It is arguable that everything that I see, in this situation, is merely dastardly bullying and bribery in service to corporate/war profiteer interests--quite typical U.S. behavior in Latin America, but short of a war plan. Even the U.S. military occupation of Colombia, the 4th Fleet and the all the rest could be read this way: intimidation, threat, dirty pool, sabotage of social justice, democracy and sovereignty efforts, psyops, disinformation, propaganda, outright buying of rightwing politicians and groups, billions of U.S. tax dollars funding the militarization of every problem and empowerment of fascists, etc., etc.--all the worst that our corporate/war profiteer-run government can do, but not overt war. But then I think of what a flimsy house of cards our democracy is, and how easily evildoers here can have--and have had--their will. I don't see Santos standing up to them. He is too much a part of them--even more so than Uribe. I watched Santos before Senate committees here, and he was quite comfortable in that war profiteer atmosphere. He behaved like an insider--and he also had an arrogant, sarcastic demeanor that reminded me of Rumsfeld. Uribe--strutting little shit that he is--never had that kind of self-assurance.

I hope I am wrong--that trade unionists and others will stop being murdered, and that the proponents of "free trade for the rich" will proceed peacefully from this point on, at least giving Colombians a respite from outright, bloody fascism, and reducing tensions in the region. That is probably the most one can hope for. U.S. policy is not going to get any better than that. Our political system is too broken. And it could get quite a bit worse.

[Judi Lynn]

7. Thank you for these updates. It's so interesting learning Uribe is seeking escape from Colombia

for the next year. This would deepen our conviction what you mentioned the other day, concerning the various directions from which Uribe could expect potential threats, is completely credible.

It's not the image Uribe sought to project during his 8 years in office, is it? It e.flies in the face of the little creep's standing behind the microphone, and calling out all the human rights workers, union and leftist and indigenous people's leaders, the ones who immediately started getting death threats, to the point people believed just to have Uribe name them publicly was the same as a death sentence. Well, well, well.

Of course he wasn't planning to be out of office this year during the last years, either, or he might have decided to take a lighter approach "Presidentifying."

~~~~~
The photo you provided shows Santos actually acting like a human being by lowering himself enough to have ordinary dialogue with Chavez. This is different from the little spook Uribe, who always seems so tense, rigid, but I have no idea what it means. It could also mean he's a super sociopath!

The points you've detailed seem really good for the official starting point. It seems it should be harder for things to get wildly out of hand when such effort is taken to define an intention to co-exist.

Santos' had better take it to heart the WHOLE world, for various reasons, will be watching his every move, too. We will be watching with deep interest.

Those 7 bases, conceived while _Bush still sat in the stolen White House, are not something it's possible to ignore.

[gbscar]

9. FWIW, the Constitutional Court might rule against the U.S. base treaty on procedural grounds...

...which may not necessarily be much of an obstacle, in the long run, but there is always a chance that small yet positive changes could be introduced to the text of the treaty in Congress if an intelligent form of diplomatic pressure is exerted beforehand by UNASUR & co.

Reference(s), the older one in English and a new source in Spanish:

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/10975-colombian-judge-claims-us-bases-unconstitutional.html

http://www.lasillavacia.com/historia/17303

As for Uribe...the best way to put it is that I'm hoping he eventually gets his day in court, as long as due process is followed, regardless of the factors that might make it difficult to see him face national or international justice in the short-medium term. Although I don't think he was the devil incarnate, as some of you would want to argue, his shameful attitudes and actions towards the opposition are well-known in addition to their sometimes deadly consequences.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Uribe will want to be out of the country in order to discourage the Supreme Court

from pursuing the case they've got against him for his wiretapping of his political targets, his surveillance of citizens for personal reasons, his ties to paramilitaries.

Good time to hit the road, right?

[Bacchus39]

12. thanks for the Captain Venezuela pic n/t

s

[Judi Lynn]

11. Colombia, Venezuela to reconcile against stealthy infiltration

Colombia, Venezuela to reconcile against stealthy infiltration
18:58, August 12, 2010

After a 19-day suspension of diplomatic ties, Venezuela and Colombia announced the resumption of diplomatic relations Tuesday, and Colombia and other South American nations have also begun to enter a period for adjustment of their relations. The restoration of diplomatic ties between Colombia and Venezuela would not only benefit the people of both nations, noted media comments, but is also an objective choice to avert the infiltration of exterior forces into the region.

Colombia's President Juan Manuel Santos held talks with his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez, in their first meeting since Santos took office, in Santa Marta, a historical Colombian city on the Caribbean coast on August 10, Santos and Chavez reached an agreement on Tuesday to restore diplomatic relations between the two countries during their talks.

Colombia and Venezuela had belonged to Great Colombia Federal Republic in history, and the current summit also shows that they are inextricably linked to their historical and cultural ties.

Upon his arrival in Colombia, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, holding fresh flows in hand, wore casual attire with the national flag color as its foundation color as an implication that both nations are of the same clan. The two presidents selected the manor of the Latin American Independence Movement Herald Liberator, Simon Bolivar, as their meeting site, and this is meaningful and thought-provoking. In early 19th century, the wise leadership of Bolivar was attributable to the liberation Venezuela, Colombia and other nations in the region.

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez reportedly had held the wide-ranging talks, which include a deal Colombia has signed to give the U.S. military access to seven Colombian bases with the aim to combat drug trafficking and rebels, which resulted in the rapture of bilateral ties due to the ensuing activities of Colombian guerrillas in Colombia's border regions, the maintenance of the unity of South American nations, peace in the region and bilateral trade expansion.

More:
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91343/7102965.html