Colombia Reports

Colombia news, sports, culture and travel

Thursday
Mar 18th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Perspective Gustavo Silva Cano UNASUR, the worthless

UNASUR, the worthless


Colombia news - unasur

Last Friday, the ministers of defense and foreign affairs of the twelve South American nations were to meet in Quito, the Ecuadorean capital. The Venezuelan government had made it clear that they wanted UNASUR to discuss the deal that allows 800 members of the American military to use seven Colombian army bases. Immediately, Colombia’s Foreign Minister, Jaime Bermúdez, and the Minister of Defense, Gabriel Silva, decided not to attend the summit. In a statement, Mr. Bermúdez said that such a discussion in UNASUR would not “be carried out in a tone of respect and objectivity”, given the recent insults made against Colombia by the Venezuelan government. Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, said the absence of Messrs. Bermúdez and Silva in Quito was “a big mistake.”

Mr. Maduro is wrong: Colombia’s big mistake is to remain a member of UNASUR. The Colombian ministers were right in deciding not to attend a summit that would be filled with unfriendliness and insults against them. Nobody wants to go to a meeting where they will be called a “crazy sniper” or a “wretch”, which are just some of the words that President Hugo Chavez has recently used against Messrs. Silva and Bermúdez. But what is not clear to me is why the Colombian government is expected to give explanations to South American states about a deal it signed with a third state. Colombia, as a sovereign, free nation, is endowed with the right to sign agreements and deals with whatever states it chooses, so far as they do not contradict international law or previous agreements signed by Colombia. Why must Colombia submit itself to scrutiny by other UNASUR nations on this matter? Why should the rest of South America have the privilege of questioning Colombia’s foreign and domestic policies?

What the legitimate government of Colombia decides to do within Colombian territory is nobody’s business but that of Colombians themselves. The privilege of shaping and deciding Colombian affairs rests with elected politicians and public officials in Bogota, not with the Presidents of Venezuela, Peru, Brazil, Chile, or Suriname. Nobody has a say on the specifics of the US-Colombia base deal besides the signatory governments, and that is the way it ought to be. Hugo Chavez and his minions may want to discuss the base deal in a forum of nations that is generally sympathetic to their anti-Americanism. They can yell, threaten us, call us names, jump up and down, explode in anger, and nothing will change the fact that Colombia does not have to take their opinion into account. The US-Colombia deal will go on, and there is nothing UNASUR can do about it.

But this week’s meeting was a reminder that Colombia should leave UNASUR. That organization is a useless, biased bureaucracy that has been a continuous obstacle to Colombia’s national interest. Ever since the base deal was announced, UNASUR has served as a platform for Mr. Chavez’s criticism of it. Presidents Cristina Fernández of Argentina, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador have all followed Venezuela’s script in one way or another. In addition, the fact that other leftist politicians preside over Chile, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay makes it more difficult for Colombia to convince its sister nations that there is nothing they should fear about the base deal. Even President Alan García of Peru, who was exiled in Colombia for years, who has also been insulted by Mr. Chavez, and who now shares some of Mr. Uribe’s right-wing philosophy, has said he is concerned with the deal because it involved “a superpower” having access to South America. The inescapable conclusion is that region has become hostile territory for Colombia’s alliance with the United States.

In contrast, the rest of South America remains silent when President Chavez calls his people “to prepare for war” with Colombia. They shut up and look elsewhere when the autocrat of Caracas sends 15,000 troops to the border. They have nothing to say when Venezuelan soldiers use force against Colombian citizens and detonate two bridges used by civilians. UNASUR does not criticize Venezuela’s recklessness, or its closeness with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or its US$4 billion weapons purchases from the Russians. UNASUR does not care about these things. Colombia, on the other hand, must explain the reasons for and the specifics of its deal with the United States.

Leaving UNASUR would be an act of political bravery. Let the rest of South America understand that a union of the continent cannot be based on double standards and disregard for the interests of one of the member nations. Moreover, leaving the organization would not be the debacle some believe. UNASUR is worthless in any case, and Colombia obtains no economic or political benefit from it. Bogota will continue to have bilateral relations with each of the other South American countries (bar Venezuela) and all trade agreements with them will remain valid. By leaving, Colombia will send a clear signal that the country will have no more of UNASUR’s hypocrisy. And perhaps Colombia could join again in a few years, when some presidencies have shifted to the right and the political environment is less hostile.

In the meantime, Colombia can do without UNASUR. We do not need it, and it has become a real headache. All the insults and the double standards will not magically go away, of course. It is very likely that once Colombia’s seat is empty, some of our sister nations will keep talking trash about us – but at least they won’t have the pleasure of doing it to our face.



Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Free and Open Source Software News Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! TwitThis Joomla Free PHP

Comments (18)add comment

tomtom33 said:

tomtom33
...
I know little of UNASUR, but I am with you solidly. In UNASUR's defense, they did make a comment about the US presence being a stabilizing force.

Again, the US needs no bases anywhere in South America to do whatever it chooses to do. Landing and operating rights on Colombian bases is merely a matter of economy. It takes time and fuel to fly from MacDill(Florida). And it also takes time and fuel to fly from Buenaventura to Barranquilla. The money saved can provide more surveillance.

Hugo and his ilk can take a flying f**k on a rolling donut.
 
November 30, 2009
Votes: +1

NotAlvaroUribe said:

NotAlvaroUribe
...
Sure, Colombia is endowed with the right to sign agreements and deals with whatever states it chooses, just the same that UNASUR nations are endowed with the right to pull their trade, ambassadors, and agreements away from Colombia.
Colombia still needs UNASUR.

The detonated bridges were used for illegal smuggling and trafficking and were needed to be taken down to stop. I wonder what "force against Colombian citizens" you speak of, I haven't seen any reports on this. Buying Russian weapons does not equal to, lets say, something like Russia operating 7 Venezuelan military bases. Buying armaments from other countries are common practice with all countries. Either way, Venezuela still spends considerably less then Colombia on Military budget. There is nothing wrong being close to Mahmoud just the same as their is nothing wrong with Colombia being close to Obama.
 
November 30, 2009
Votes: -2

tomtom33 said:

tomtom33
...
"...like Russia operating 7 Venezuelan military bases. " It is statements like this that needlessly inflame matters. We go from the US having landing rights at 7 bases to the US operating 7 bases in one fell swoop. Wake up, Not!!

When there are bridges between countries, those bridges were built and allowed to exist by agreement of both countries. One country should never unilaterally breach such bridges. Illegal smuggling? No shit, Sherlock.
 
November 30, 2009
Votes: +0

NotAlvaroUribe said:

NotAlvaroUribe
...
Yes, as it is read in the US Military document that they fund the infrastructure development and will conduct military operations in them. Wake up, these are not just mere "landing rights", as we can see the US described it for full spectrum operations across South America.

Keep digging Watson! Of course bridges are built and allowed to exist by agreement of both countries, however the problem is that these bridges in question were made illegally in the first place so it is within Venezuela's right to take them down. There were no agreements made so they can be taken down. If the civilians need to cross, they can do so by legal proper means of appointed bridges or entrances.
 
December 01, 2009
Votes: +0

gringomedillin said:

0
...
Buying Russian weapons does not equal to, lets say, something like Russia operating 7 Venezuelan military bases
But NotAlvaroUribe the Russians have held joint military operations off the coast of South America and in Venezuela, this is no different then US operations ,yet UNASUR.said nothing of this. Gustavo is right there is a double standard and Colombia leaving sends a loud message it will not be party to such behave.

While UNASUR could be a powerful economic engine for member countries, as long as it is allows one of it's members to use it as a bully pulpit , it fails to be or do anything meaningful.
 
December 01, 2009
Votes: +0

NotAlvaroUribe said:

NotAlvaroUribe
...
No, Joint Military exercises are also held between US and Colombia and is nothing alarming. It is common practice and is nothing new.
Joint Military Exercises are done frequently, even the ones between US-Russia starting from the "Exercise Cooperation from The Sea '96". Also the SALITRE operations in South America that the US participates joint military exercises with other South American Nations. Other joint exercises are the PfP and BALTOPS '96, Co-op Osprey 96, UNITAS, CARAT, RIMPAC, WATC, etc... And all these joint military exercises the US participated in. If Colombia participates in military exercises with the US that's fine, just as they have done in the past and will continue to do. Just the same should be with Venezuela and Russia joint exercises if they pursue it.
The US-Colombian base military pact with no guarantee for its neighbors is way out of line, it is not a double standard.
 
December 01, 2009
Votes: +0

tomtom33 said:

tomtom33
...
What guarantees were in place at Manta? Was Manta out of line?
 
December 01, 2009
Votes: +0

Crow said:

0
...
I have to wonder if the person who signs "NotAlvaroUribe" is a paid political propaganda writer for Chavez. The biggest war monger in South America is the fascist dictator Hugo Chavez. At this very moment large areas of one of his offshore islands is controlled by armed islamic terrorist. At this very moment Chavez is protecting FARC terrorist and their kidnapped hostages in Venezulan territory. At this very moment Chavez has in jail over 80 political prisoners whose only crime was not to agree with him.

It is time the OAS, the UN and the Obama administration wake up and realize that the new Hitler, Hugo Chavez is attempting to enslave Central and South America.
 
December 01, 2009
Votes: +0

NotAlvaroUribe said:

NotAlvaroUribe
...
There were no guarantees and yes, Manta was out of line which is why Ecuador wanted out of its country. Manta base agreement was signed in 1999. UNASUR wasn't signed until May 2008. Latin America has been evolving exponentially since then and the attitude of foreign military intervention has changed. The former Ecuadorian president who agreed to the Manta base was overthrown by the people of Ecuador. When Correa was democratically elected president he refused to continue the agreement with the Manta base with popular support. If you're using Manta as a good example for the US-Colombian base agreement, it is a lost cause. Since then, their have been reports of the US was funding and operating illegal campaigns and operations within Ecuador.
 
December 01, 2009
Votes: +0

NotAlvaroUribe said:

NotAlvaroUribe
...
jaja Crow, you're too funny.
I wish I was paid for this, but I involve myself in this as a passion and just for fun.
But clearly, as we can see in your post, you have no problem spreading propaganda lies and make unfounded comparisons of characters. I hope you're not getting paid to write that junk.
 
December 01, 2009
Votes: +0

tomtom33 said:

tomtom33
...
Illegal is what the opposition calls anything that it does not like. Seems that you can spread innuendo pretty well too.
 
December 01, 2009
Votes: +0

NotAlvaroUribe said:

NotAlvaroUribe
...
Illegal is what is claimed in the Ecuadorian constitution.
 
December 01, 2009
Votes: +0

tomtom33 said:

tomtom33
...
If you could easily tell what violates any constitution or body of law, there would be no lawyers(not a bad idea). Illegal is in the eye of the interpreter.
 
December 01, 2009
Votes: +1

josh hyman said:

0
...
Gustavo,

While I agree with you that Colombia has the right to make deals with whomever it so chooses, at the same time I disagree with your conclusions that Colombia owes no explanations to neighboring countries. There are two reasons I disagree. The first reason is that by taking this stance Colombia is effectively allowing Venezuela to do the same thing with Iran, Syria, North Korea or whatever state it wants, without explanation. That can not be good for Colombia or any other country in the region. The other reason is that your conclusions suggest the following; it is preferred to be correct but alone. If Colombia treats her neighbors this way she will find herself standing alone on smaller issues that require the efforts of neighboring countries. Sometimes, many times in politics, its better to accept that you have to do things you dont want to in order to maintain relationships you need.
 
December 03, 2009
Votes: +0

Ernesto Castro said:

0
...
I agree completely with you in the sense that Colombia is a free country and don't need to give explanations to UNASUR about its US-Colombia agreement. Leftist in South America think they should control everybody. What they should do is mind their own business and realize that the cancer is Venezuela and its leftist dictator Mr. Chavez. There can be only progress in countries where there is free of speech, choice and competition and unfortunately in most of the Latin American Countries these qualities are more rare every day.
 
December 04, 2009
Votes: +0

gringomedellin said:

0
...
The first reason is that by taking this stance Colombia is effectively allowing Venezuela to do the same thing with Iran, Syria, North Korea or whatever state it wants, without explanation

Josh is this not exactly the stance of Chavez that he needs to explain to no one , That is the problem here UNASUR which could be a major force in advance SA issues fails because it hold a clear double standard, It attacks Colombia at the bequest of Chavez yet remains silent when he threatens war, rmians silent when he joins in allinace with NorthKorea,Iran, Syria. They remain silent while he harbors the FARC as allies, They remain silent when the FARC exhorts money from victims of it's land mines, Gustavo is right UNASUR has proven itself to be worthless, which is said because when it was established I had high hopes for this group.
 
December 04, 2009
Votes: +0

NotAlvaroUribe said:

NotAlvaroUribe
...
Well there is no military alliance with Venezuela, N.Korea, Iran and Syria that threatens the stability of Latin America. The only "alliance" with N.Korea was with Science and Technology which I'm not sure it fell through. The only "alliance" with Syria was just a calling for peace in the Middle East, also non threatening and really doesn't require much explanation there. As with Iran, it is only of economic agreements, the same kind Iran has with Brazil now, and probably Bolivia and other countries if that even moved forward but its too recent to tell. So far there has been no alliance made with FARC, that's blatant lies, and does not willingly harbor FARC, but one could say Colombia does too if you say Venezuela does, lol.
UNASUR, although still new, is now a major player for future progress of Latin America, and Colombia might be stuck in the past if it keeps isolating itself with its archaic methods.
 
December 04, 2009
Votes: +0

Daniel said:

0
...
"Since then, their have been reports of the US was funding and operating illegal campaigns and operations within Ecuador. "

Where's the source to this?
 
December 06, 2009
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Your opinion please

Colombia's best news source is
 

CR members

Advertise with us

Reach out to the tens of thousands reading Colombia Reports