The U.S. government praised Colombia for its "restrained response" to verbal attacks from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and reiterated its willingness to mediate the strained tensions between the neighbor countries.
U.S. Department of State spokesperson Charles Luoma-Overstreet was responding to a comment by a prominent Colombian businessman that it was "notoriously strange" that U.S. government has so far declined to enter the latest diplomatic fray with neighboring Venezuela.
Relation between Colombia and Venezuela deteriorated rapidly after Colombia announced a new military pact with the U.S., allowing the Americans to use military bases and civilian airports for antiterrorism and counternarcotics operations.
Venezuela views the military pact as an imperialistic attempt by the U.S. to undermine sovereignty in Latin America. Following the signing of the pact Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ordered his nation to "prepare for war".
Chavez has since softened his rhetoric, claiming that the media had manipulated his words and that "Venezuela's military is pacifist."
"We support dialogue as means to overcoming the recent tensions," said Luoma-Overstreet.
The spokesperson said that the U.S. "does not have aggressive intentions towards Venezuela or any other country," but instead "seeks peace and prosperity through dialogue."
Luoma-Overstreet said the U.S. was "concerned over Venezuela's rhetoric commentary" and that it is "in the interest of all the countries in the continent to promote stability and peaceful resolution through dialogue".
Venezuela will respond to Colombia's complaint over 'threats of war' before the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday.
Andrewmann552
said:
 |
... Of course the US is going to praise Colombia's attitude. Colombia has now become a military base for US interests like Israel in the Middle East, did anyone expect any other kind of response? |
Bill H
said:
|
... Hate to tell you, but the US does not have troops in Israel. Get your facts straight before comparing one situation to the other. And, when did it become wrong to protect American interests. If we hadn't done so in WWI and WWII and Korea and Vietnam, we might be speaking German or Russian now. I hope the UN Security Council gives it good to Venezuela. But, of course, they will not as they are run by China and Russia who only care about out our ever-increasing debt load to them, and selling old nukes to rogue nations like Venezuela and Iran. Imagine if the US acted the same way toward Mexico that Venezuela acts toward Colombia. We would be sanctioned immediately by the puppet UN Security Council. Meanwhile, who allows them to have their headquarters here and pays for most of the UN budget? The US! |
doug van eps
said:
|
... when is odummer going to tell his buddy, chavez, to shut up and stop the saber rattling? he isnt going to do that. |
Andrewmann552
said:
|
... Bill H, you seriously need an education. Please explain how Woodrow Wilson was protecting US interests in World World I. The US entered World World II pretty late in the game, in fact, it was the USSR which took Berlin and saved us all from speaking German (before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was already drawing up plans for coexisting and cooperating with Nazi Germany). Your comment about Mexico is interesting, but let's look at this like educated adults, how would the US have reacted if Russia or China put seven military bases in Mexico? |
