Colombia protests Nicaraguan presidential remarks (updated)

by rahul | June 20, 2008 at 05:12 pm | 559 views | 12 comments | 7 recommendations

Updates: On 21 June 2008 and according to Caracol network, Colombian Foreign Minister revealed his governments might ask for the extradition of three surviving girls from the 1 March incident in Ecuador. However, it is very unlikely it would succeed in doing so. Colombian forces entered Ecuadorian territory illegally and killed 26 people; instead of providing assistance to the survivors left them unattended. Such circumstances make it rather difficult international community or Nicaragua would entertain Colombian extradition request.

Caracas, Venezuela, 20 June, 2008. Today, Colombian Foreign Minister - Fernando Araujo- protested the opinion expressed on his President Alvaro Uribe by his Nicaraguan counterpart, Daniel Ortega. Commenting on the 50-year-old civil conflict in Colombia, President Ortega equated actions of Alvaro Uribe with terrorism. After recalling the events of 1 March 2008 that caused a regional conflict when Colombia invaded Ecuadorian territory unsolicited, Ortega stated Bogota promoted state terrorism. Ortega also condemned attempts made by Uribe´s administration to kill the three girls- tow Colombians and a Mexican- who survived the 1 March Colombian incursion in Ecuador. They now live in Nicaragua protected as refugees. They are expected to bring international charges against Alvaro Uribe in the near future. On the other hand, Colombian government regretted President Ortega partook company with the three surviving girls who are criminal according to Colombian justice system.

Colombia and Nicaragua currently dispute the sovereignty of several Caribbean island and their common boundaries. The case is in the hands of the International Court of Justice.

Sources: VTV, El Nuevo Siglo, Globovision, El Tiempo, El Colombiano, YVKE, Telesur, Caracol, El Espectador, El Comercio,

recommend Add a comment

Luiz Castro

at 17:36 on June 20th, 2008

"Daniel Ortega. Commenting on the 50-year-old civil conflict in Colombia, President Ortega equated actions of Alvaro Uribe with terrorism."

Ortega was a terrorist himself, he is talking with a lot of knowledge about the matter I suppose.

rahul

at 19:46 on June 20th, 2008

IfCastro, May I bring to your attention that ideological or extreme rightist religion beliefs can lead to mistaken perceptions on events. Your recent remarks are so misleadingly biased that they invite for clarification. As a member of Sandinista National Liberation Front, Daniel Ortega opposed a dictator called Anastasio Somoza Debayle who ruled Nicaragua until 1979. Ortega was Nicaraguan democratically elected President for the 1985-1990 term. Violeta Barrios de Chamorro succeeded Ortega at the Presidency.

Before and during his first term in office, Ortega had to confront US state terrorism and paramilitary Contras. On 27 June 1986, US was condemned by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). President Reagan´s administration was accused of planting mines in Nicaragua, violating its air space, breaching bilateral agreements and sponsoring paramilitary Contras activities, which violated Human Rights. Reparations were awarded to Nicaragua. But, in a most controversial reaction to the ruling US refused to comply with it.

In a report by International NGO Redress on Terrorism, Counter Terrorism and Torture, it was stated: The line between terrorist acts and counter-terrorism activities is not always clear. Notably, in 1987, the US, as part of its ‘war on terror’, ordered its forces in Nicaragua to go “after soft targets” and to avoid the Nicaraguan army. This decision was taken after the International Court of Justice had declared the United States’ use of force against Nicaragua unlawful, and after the Security Council had endorsed the judgement and called on all States to observe international law (the US vetoed the resolution) and the General Assembly had passed a similar resolution.

Do bare in mind that Daniel Ortega fought for Democracy in Nicaragua even before Brazil adopted one. Ortega was ending his first time in office when Collor de Mello was democratically elected the first President in Brazil by 1990.

I hope this clarification would help judge Latin American processes in a clearer way. Perhaps, they would help you diffuse false beliefs instilled while growing up under a rightist Military Junta in Brazil.

Luiz Castro

at 05:34 on June 21st, 2008

The communism is like a religion, when you believe in that, you loose the sense of right and wrong, it amazing how all communists are extremists. If you are a communist and fight for your regime believes, you are called a "revolutionary". Why changing names?

I have noticed you love to bring news that Colombian president is viewed as a terrorist, he was elected for the Colombian people and is very popular under his owns, I personally have no opinion about his administration, but I can tell you, he is as terrorist as Chavez is a dictator.

In Brazil we only had 3 months on "Junta" government in 1968. During the military regime, 1964-1986 we have "National Congress elected Presidents" and Congress members were elected for the people, not Juntas. Even during those tough years of dictators, because we vote for Congress, but we had no free press, no president of Brazil least more than five years, actually reelection was forbidden,that was a creation of new elected Brazilian presidents. That is just a point for your reflection.

I want to remember you I grew up under a dictatorship , that is why I know one. When I went to your Country I could find the same propaganda I had on my own Country during my childhood. Same Executive control over the Congress, same freedom restrictions over press fredom, and same kind of nationalist rhetoric. Actually dictadures are all alike. If the military in Brazil had become a communist dictadure, we maybe would still under the regime until today.

To have an idea how alike they are, under 20 years of Military regime in Brazil we had telecommunications, energy, banks, aviation, social security, highway system, steel , etc, etc all nationalized. In 1986 70% of the Brazilian GDP was under government control and Brazil had become one of the most ineficient economies in the world, with high level of corruption everywhere.

An other correction is Collor was the first elected President of Brazil after the Military Regime, but the Military Regime finished on 1986 with the election of Tancredo Neves and José Sarney, using the National Congresss indirect electoral system, designed by the Military, that was a proof that we were over a tough regime but the path to exit always existed, even when no one could see that, mainly that blindness was caused for mixed popular support to the Military and also because of the freedom press restrictions. We did not remove the Military by a revolution in Brazil, we used the same perverse system they have created to ride them off. We had also a big national campaign for direct elections for President, but that was not approved by the Congress at that time, mainly rulled by Military supporters.

Before I get to the end I have to say I appreciate debating, I like to see different sides and oppinions and I frequentely change my own opinion. I also noticed you are always reffering to the official Venezuelan government news and that is fine, but the good journalism require more than an official biased point of view.

My final point about the theme: These Latino caudilhos that want least forever are not in the Brazilian tradition.We had one called Getulio Vargas, but he could not stand more them 10 years too.

rahul

at 07:31 on June 21st, 2008

IfCastro. Thanks for replying an expressing your personal bias and vies on democracy. Brazilian independence and democracy were certainly different from Latin American ones. Brazilian juntas loved to cloth themselves under different names but perfomed very little democracy. Your opinions make that poin clearer and show how unfair it was to call Daniel Ortega a terrorist. It is sad you have only recently had the chance to enjoy living in a democratic country. However, be aware there are various democratic forms of government in the Western tradition. Visiting a country does not certainly give you a privileged position to judge what happened in the past or the future. It is only your own touristic adventure to quote as a very legitimate personal view and not a universal truth. Do bare in mind that democratic criticism and performance is much harder to grasp or execute than mere touring a country. If I may suggest you a tip, I would only ask you to read as much as you can on classical Democracy theories to understand them better.

As regards to my sources, I can only repeat what has been said before in response to your remarks. Please read my stories as they are printed and not as you would like them twisted. A simple glance on my stories would make it clear that a variety of sources are quoted. Unlike your stories which only show a single point of view and have very little reseach, I usually cover a wider range of ideological and political stands. Of course, there is no need to say that opposition Globovision is always quoted along official sources. It is the right thing to do! Remember that showing as many sides and interpretations have certainly improve my stories. I do invite you to emulate my style to enrich your citizen journalism.

Finally,could you please try harder to avoid taking my stories so personally.I have noticed from previous comments that you have accused me of issuing opinions of others as my own. When my stories quote opinions against Colombian Alvaro Uribe made by Bolivian Evo, Ecuadorian Correa or Nicaraguan Ortega, they do depict what is taking place in Latin America. It is not my personal opinion at all but their opinions and political stands.

Luiz Castro

at 08:45 on June 21st, 2008

I don't belive in a bipolar world. I am not attacking you, I appreciate your ideas and ideology. I just don't have the same credo. Don't take that too personal. I like Venezuela and respect the choices made by its own people.

A military junta is a government ruled by a committee of military leaders, again, we did not have that in Brazil, we had a military regime ruled by a single general, each general ruled 5 years, they did not the Country by committes.

rahul

at 08:55 on June 21st, 2008

If Catro, please do not take me wrong. It is not a matter of liking or disliking me. It is not necessary to share what you labelled as a credo. It is a matter of stopping taking it personally. You are free to post your ideas but just make sure they are backed by evidence of proper sources. Were you not a believer of bipolar world, you would not have made such biased comparison of Ortega with terrorism. Such comments belong to the cold world era and military thinking in Latin America. Finally, do not allow your professed respect for a country and its people stop you from making proper criticism or comparison.

PS: Thanks for clarifying the military style of government in Brazil. Unlike democracies, military juntas did govern by its army cadres alone. Remember that dictators govern by a junta of fellow military men in ministries and governmental offices. Military juntas have governed behind front puppet dictators too. Had Daniel Ortega born in Brazil, he would have certainly opposed dictatorship. Maybe, Brazilians would have enjoyed democratic institutions earlier. Would you not agree?

Luiz Castro

at 09:02 on June 21st, 2008

Hi Rahul,

Relax, I am not a supporter of the military regime, don't take that too serious. Today is Saturday, I think we need a beer together to seal our mutual respect.

It's great have you here. White flag my frien, white flag.