Colombia and Ecuador: An unmended fence

[Judi Lynn]

Colombia and Ecuador
An unmended fence

Mar 5th 2009 | BOGOTÁ
From The Economist
Colombia gained much and suffered little from its raid into Ecuador

A YEAR ago Colombia’s neighbours condemned it for sending troops into Ecuador to bomb and overrun a camp of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The raid was a success: one of the FARC’s senior leaders, Raúl Reyes, was killed and Colombian forces grabbed three laptops containing vital intelligence, including evidence of the guerrillas’ contacts with the leftist governments of Ecuador and Venezuela. Since then Colombia’s American-backed drive to crush the FARC has made further progress. The guerrillas have lost other leaders and suffered desertions. A group of prominent hostages they were holding was rescued in July. On March 2nd the army said it had killed another FARC leader, José de Jesús Guzmán, alias “Gaitán”, suspected of organising bombings in the capital, Bogotá.

After last year’s raid, Ecuador and Venezuela severed diplomatic relations with Colombia and sent troops to their borders with it. Other South American countries, even moderate Brazil, condemned the incursion. Two regional clubs, the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Rio Group, expressed disapproval. However, within weeks of the raid, Colombia’s President Álvaro Uribe was again on backslapping terms with President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. Mr Uribe smoothed things over with Brazil on a recent visit there. Relations with Ecuador remain cut but overall, says Alfredo Rangel, a security analyst in Bogotá, Colombia has paid a “small diplomatic price”.

The OAS continues efforts to mend the rift between the two countries. On February 26th its secretary-general, José Miguel Insulza, met Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, to push reconciliation. Three days later, however, Colombia’s defence minister, Juan Manuel Santos, a possible candidate in the 2010 presidential elections, stirred the pot, calling the raid an act of “legitimate defence” and celebrating the killing of Reyes. Mr Correa retorted that he would “never forgive” those who violated his country’s sovereignty, warning Mr Santos not to “mess with Ecuador”. To placate Mr Correa and Mr Chávez, Mr Uribe gave his jingoist minister a wrist-slapping.

Mr Correa says relations will not be restored until certain conditions are met. These include Colombia improving its border security to stop the FARC crossing into Ecuador. Mr Correa also wants the Colombians to give a full report of their raid on his country’s territory, including all the information they found on the FARC’s computers. He wants Colombia to pay damages for the raid and to help with the cost of looking after around half a million Colombians who have fled to Ecuador to escape the decades-long conflict back home. Finally, Mr Correa wants Colombia to stop “defaming” his government by revealing what the computers told it about the rebels’ links to Ecuadorean officials.

More:
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13235097&fsrc=rss

[Bacchus39]

1. "Colombia gained much and suffered little from its raid into Ecuador"

ain't that the truth!!! and that is why they did it.

I find Ecuador's request for Colombia to help with the cost of Colombian immigrants intriguing.

Perhaps we should ask Haiti, Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venezuela, Colombia, China, Korea for the same.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Those countries are not engaged in maintaining the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. n/t

[Bacchus39]

3. Haiti isn't really???

Haiti is much much much worse off than Colombia. Your "displaced" persons humanitarian crisis is bunk. Colombia suffers no where near a crisis like Haiti or countries in Africa or other latin american countries in terms of poverty and famine. but you wouldn't know.

[rabs]

4. What tortured logic in the Economist article

Sub-headline says "Colombia gained much and suffered little from its raid into Ecuador"

Reading the article, I see that Colombia gained:

1. A diplomatic rupture with Ecuador.
2. A diplomatic rupture with Venezuela.
3. Condemnation by other South American countries for the incursion.
4. Condemnation by Brazil, the big guy on the block now in Latam.
5. Condemnation by the Organization of American States.
6. Condemnation by the Rio Group.

Not in the article:

Nicaragua broke diplomatic relations with Colombia. Many in Mexico protested because four Mexican students were killed in the raid. Uribe was received with scorn by all hemisphere leaders at the Dominican Republic conference on the bombing raid. The raid also contributed to the closure of the U.S. base in Manta, Ecuador, after reports emerged that the U.S. military had had a hand in the bombing.

The spin on the Economist article is to be expected though, because it was written from the perspective of the Uribe government.

[Bacchus39]

5. Condemnation versus results

1. the guerrilla leader was killed

2. the Colombian government gained extremely valuable information

3. the rupture with Venezuela was as much Chavez's doing.

4. coincidentally, Chavez renounced the FARC shortly after the bombing whereas before he supported them.


a scolding appears to have been worth the effort. even if they could have acted more diplomatically with Ecudador initially.