Wednesday, March 23rd 2011 - 02:54 UTC

South American countries divided over allied bombings of Libya

Several South American countries are demanding an immediate cease fire in Libya and questioning the intensity and extensive bombing by an alliance of NATO strike forces of several cities under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’ control.

Opposite standings: Morales, Chavez and Piñera, García

Others however support the NATO, which means that so far no regional organization (Mercosur or Unasur), has adopted or even tried drafting a joint resolution on the issue.

When the crucial vote last March 17 at the UN Security Council, Resolution 1973, which imposed the ‘no-fly’ zone over Libya (opening the way for the bombing), Brazil (together with permanent members Russia, China and India and Germany) abstained, while Colombia was among the ten votes supporting the decision to intervene.

However over the weekend Brazil called for a cease fire to protect the lives of Libyan civilians and insisted on an immediate dialogue between Gaddafi and the rebels to restore peace.

Earlier this week President Rafael Correa said Ecuador rejected point blank the military intervention” and added that “a majority of world countries are not saying a word fearing the consequences and preferring to be seen as supporters, but Ecuador has long overcome servility”.

Correa also called on Unasur to establish position on the Middle East crisis, not only Libya, basically because “it’s the peoples of Middle East that must solve their problems with no interference from foreign powers, much less militarily”.

Bolivia’s leader Evo Morales suggested that the United Nations change their name to “organization of invading nations”. Morales called for “an immediate cease of the military aggression against Libya” and demanded that a commission from “the UN, the Arab League, the African League of Nations mediates to find a peaceful solution to the conflict”.

Morales also called the Security Council an “insecurity council” arguing they use any pretext “to invade and take over countries’ resources”•. He also questioned President Barack Obama who he said does not deserve the Peace Nobel Prize.

“How is it possible that a Nobel Prize promotes an invasion, this is common crime”, said Morales.

Argentina also criticized the NATO offensive against Libya’s Gaddafi saying that “all possible diplomatic resources had not been exhausted” when the military action took place. He added that this is “quite evident from the first results of the military intervention”.

For his part Sebastián Piñera said Chile fully supports the military action taking place in Libya. “A person that has bombarded his own people does not deserve to govern that people” Piñera said standing next to President Obama during the US leader’s Monday visit to Chile.

Uruguay’s president Jose Mujica rejected the Libya bombings by the international coalition saying it’s an “inexplicable contradiction”.

The former guerrilla leader and nationalist-pragmatic president said the situation represents a back step for the current international order, and “medicine is worse than the sickness: bombing to save lives of people; what a pitiful situation”.

On Sunday Uruguay’s ruling coalition Broad Front condemned the UN Security Council resolution, demanding respect for the “self determination of peoples and the non interference in country’s internal affairs”. Nevertheless last week Uruguay’s Foreign Affairs minister Luis Almagro supported Resolution 1973.

In February the Uruguayan government made public a statement condemning (Gaddafi’s government) “violence against the Libyan people” and called for a “constructive dialogue” in the framework of respect for human rights and democratic principles.

Paraguay regretted the UN weakness for not having impeded the use of force in Libya. Foreign Affairs secretary Jorge Lara Castro, who was sworn in Tuesday, said that allied bombing “reflects UN weakness, particularly at the Security Council”. He added Paraguay strongly supports peace talks since violence and the use of force only makes things worse.

On Sunday the former Foreign minister Hector Lacognata had to come out saying Paraguay condemns all forms of violence and sponsors a peaceful, harmonious solution born out of dialogue between the sides in conflict. Lacognata however also had to explain what President Lugo really meant when during a political rally, he condemned the United Nations for allowing the bombing and openly supported Muammar Gaddafi.

Lacognata said that those words were “a personal opinion” from Citizen President Lugo because Paraguay condemns violence in all its forms and only supports a peaceful, political, dialogue solution to the conflict.

The position of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez from the very beginning was very clear: he refused to condemn Libyan leader Gaddafi and warned that “the United States was preparing an invasion of the North African country to seize control of its oil reserves”.

“We must be prudent. We know what our political line is: We don't support invasions, or massacres, or anything like that no matter who does it. A campaign of lies is being spun together regarding Libya,” said Chavez.

”I'm not going to condemn him (Gaddafi),“ he said. ”I'd be a coward to condemn someone who has been my friend”.

Finally Peruvian President Alan García applauded the military intervention in Libya and stated that “it is demonstrating that International Law is fundamental to the coexistence of peoples.”

“We salute the United Nations and the governments of the United States, France, and Great Britain, who have gone to the aid of the Libyan people” García said.

He added that there should be no hesitation in confronting “dictators that remain in office indefinitely, using re-election to govern for decades contrary to the will of the people.”

García recalled that Peru was the first country to sever diplomatic relations with the Libyan government and that the country had also proposed a no-fly zone to the UN in order to protect civilians in Libya.
 

27 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 Redhoyt (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 03:45 am Report abuse
“ ... and insisted on an immediate dialogue between Gaddafi and the rebels to restore peace ...”

Gaddafi isn't listening, he's shooting!

“ ... Ecuador has long overcome servility ''' ”

And prospered as a result :-)

“ ... Morales called for “an immediate cease of the military aggression against Libya” and demanded ....”

.... that Gaddafi be allowed to shoot his people in peace (es) ...... !

“ ... “all possible diplomatic resources had not been exhausted” when the military action took place ...

i.e Gaddafi hadn't finished shooting civilians and needed more time !

” ... Chile fully supports the military action taking place in Libya. “A person that has bombarded his own people does not deserve to govern that people...”

Chile - one of the two lonely shining lights of South America.

“ ... demanding respect for the “self determination of peoples and the non interference in country’s internal affairs”. Nevertheless last week Uruguay’s Foreign Affairs minister Luis Almagro supported Resolution 1973 ...

Oh dear, the other shining light appears not to know who to please!

” ... had to explain what President Lugo really meant when during a political rally, he condemned the United Nations for allowing the bombing and openly supported Muammar Gaddafi.....“

” ... The position of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez from the very beginning was very clear: he refused to condemn Libyan leader Gaddafi ...”

The flawed democracies (BRs, T-PD's) supporting a dictator .... magnificent show boys !

” .. “We salute the United Nations and the governments of the United States, France, and Great Britain, who have gone to the aid of the Libyan people” García said..... He added that there should be no hesitation in confronting “dictators that remain in office indefinitely, using re-election to govern for decades contrary to the will of the people.”

Hmmm .... wonder who he's talking about :-)
2 Marcos Alejandro (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 04:36 am Report abuse
Why then in Darfur's genocide nothing is done? Let me guess, no oil.
3 Martin_Fierro (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 05:51 am Report abuse
“Chile - one of the two lonely shining lights of South America.”

Because they allow your pirate ships in? That's why they shine? hahaha..

If you suck up to Chile any harder you're gonna rupture an artery Redhot, make sure your crappy UK pension will cover the surgery first. ;-)
4 Be serious (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 08:44 am Report abuse
(2) Lots of oil in Sudan, Zimbabwe would have been a better example.
(3) Chile is a fine Country.
5 Zethee (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 09:05 am Report abuse
“Why then in Darfur's genocide nothing is done? Let me guess, no oil.”

You do know that Dafur is the largest peackeeping operation in the world, right? There is 26.000 troops there from the UN.

As far as i know China and the African Union are the ones dealing with it. Also Darfur' has loads of oil, China buys most of it.
6 Martin_Fierro (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 09:11 am Report abuse
4 Be serious,

“Chile is a fine Country.”

If Chile were to deny you port they would be shit to you.
7 Idlehands (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 10:11 am Report abuse
The problem with relying on dialogue is that dialogue could not possibly work on its own in this case. This is a conflict between Gaddafi and the people of Libya - not between states. Gaddafi would just use dialogue as a delaying tactic while he sought to crush the cities in rebellion. He is still doing that even after 4 days of bombing.

NB I don't recall there being any oil in Bosnia/Kosovo
8 Be serious (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 10:57 am Report abuse
6 No, not at all. I like Chile. Very polite and friendly people.
Can't see them denying me port but then I probably wouldn't ask for port.
9 Martin_Fierro (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 11:02 am Report abuse
8 Be serious.

You know what I mean, port for the “Royal” Navy. Sooner or later they will see things from our perspective, and they will deny the UK port, and everything else.
10 Redhoyt (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 11:04 am Report abuse
I think that Chile 'sees' Argentina very clearly .... they have history after all!
11 Idlehands (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 11:20 am Report abuse
Are there any topics that don't descend into soundbites about the Falklands?
12 Frase (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 12:50 pm Report abuse
Perhaps I'm missing something, but with the rebels on the verge of defeat, if the only concern was oil, then wouldn't it have been better to turn a blind eye and have normal service resumed as soon as possible? Rather than spending hundreds of millions on intervention on behalf of rebels that we know very little about.

He was talking about going “house by house and room by room” and showing “no mercy, no pity” in Benghazi, so if he felt that the intervention was to oust him and gain control of the oil, I'm sure he'd have no problem destroying Libya's oil producing infrastructure (on the basis that he's had no problem massacring his own people and shelling his own cities) before that happened.

That said it does leave a bit of a sour taste, in that we're intervening because he's using his superior firepower against his own people, but Britain has helped him to obtain that superior firepower.
13 Marcos Alejandro (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 02:35 pm Report abuse
Thanks for the correction, however, why then in Darfur's genocide nothing is done?
“There is 26.000 troops there from the UN” clearly did not stop the genocide, why UK or US are not bombing their leaders like in Libya? Perhaps because the Chinese are taking most of the oil there.

www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2008/gb20080314_430126.htm
14 Typhoon (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 03:09 pm Report abuse
@12 Perhaps you could clarify how Britain has helped him obtain his superior firepower. Would that be because a British-American company is involved in oil extraction? Note that. BP is around 50/50. So what about the other oil companies? How have they not helped him? What about all the countries that bought oil produced in Libya? Have they not also contributed?

No point waiting for Argentines to condemn Gaddafi. They are much the same. Both keen to kill their own people.
15 Frase (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 03:32 pm Report abuse
I wasn't referring to the oil, no. I was referring to selling him arms
16 Idlehands (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 04:06 pm Report abuse
His 'arms' looked like piles of rusty Soviet era junk so I don't think the west should take the rap for that.
17 Frase (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 04:27 pm Report abuse
So we haven't sold them any weapons?
18 Marcos Alejandro (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 05:00 pm Report abuse
”British officials have condemned Gaddafi for murdering his people. There is just one thing wrong with this: Britain’s outgoing New Labour party and incoming Tory-Liberal Democrat “coalition” governments sold Gaddafi’s regime arms worth GBP 22,500,961 in the second quarter of 2010 alone, including “ammunition for wall and door breaching projectile launchers (two licences); components for semi-automatic pistols; components for sniper rifles; crowd control ammunition (four licences); equipment for the use of sniper rifles”.2 Would those British officials who support sanctions and the imposition of “no fly zones” on Libya support imposing the same things on London?
British hypocrisy”

www.paltelegraph.com/world/uk-news/8626-more-blood-for-oil-libya-and-the-uk.html
19 Frase (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 05:28 pm Report abuse
If David Cameron said that he was going to show no mercy to people protesting against him in London, and go from house to house, room to room, whilst using the air force to kill it's residents, then I'd fully support a no fly zone and welcome international intervention.
20 Jefferson's soul (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 05:30 pm Report abuse
they're digging for black gold... not surprised

my lovely friend RedneckHoyt is also trying to post useless comments as usual, but he forgot to mention what Mujica said...
21 Marcos Alejandro (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 05:35 pm Report abuse
Frase, Gadaffi did not become a crazy murder dictator overnight.
22 Think (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 05:55 pm Report abuse
(19) Frase

You make things sooooo simple:
”If David Cameron said that he was going to show no mercy to people protesting against him in London, and go from house to house, room to room, whilst using the air force to kill it's residents, then I'd fully support a no fly zone and welcome international intervention.”

What if:
If David Cameron said that he was going to show no mercy to IRA terrorists protesting against him in Londonderry, and go from house to house, room to room, whilst using the air force to neutralize those fanatics, would you then fully support a no fly zone and welcome international intervention?
23 Frase (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 06:14 pm Report abuse
Marcos - Obviously not, and it is shameful that Gadaffi has been pandered to and armed by the west in the (recent) past.

Think - If they were protesting for change and democracy that had been previously denied to them for so long, following the lead of Denmark and Sweden who had successfully managed to overthrow their despotic governments in a largely peaceful manner, and Cameron reacted like Gadaffi has reacted, then yes, I'd hope that they wouldn't be left to be massacred.

Are you trying to say that Gadaffi has been fair and even-handed in his response?
24 yul (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 07:04 pm Report abuse
Frase/

can Britain be defined as the incipient fascist state !?
25 briton (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 08:49 pm Report abuse
don’t be silly [Britain’s not perfect but she is ok.
I don’t understand [frases point] when did Denmark and Sweden get rid of their despot governments,,
as for libya I think their is much confusion here,
1, the west has not armed libya since the Lockerby incident/and the police incident,
2, exactly what did the UK supply libya with, how much ,
3, did libya comply with international standards , for selling this stuff,
at the time she complied with what was asked of her, so from the military’s point of view she was ok to sell arms to,
4, this aside the uk-USA-FRANCE-GERMANY-JAPAN-KOREA-RUSSIA-CHINA- and the list goes on,, who has sold arms to other countries so to blame the UK is truly unfair, but please don’t get me wrong, we all have opinions, I think countries should not sell arms to any country that has a history of unstable government or military up heaval, but even this went out of the window with Egypt, its very hard to say who do you sell to, and who not to, but if countries never sold them other unstable countries would, nothing is perfect, and I suppose MONEY and greed is again behind it, this was not the first time western powers have been shot at, by there own weapons, until they come up with a better solution then what do you suggest, in the meantime this guy must be dealt with, followed by the next one, that is of course if we ever get out of this one,
the point being, you just cant slaughter your own people and get away with it, [and the first thing you will say is Zimbabwe, ]
and I like most, will have no answer, but that’s the world we live in,
it may be oil, in most cases it is, but in others it is not,
I don’t think even politicians know what the hell is going on, confusion and more confusion, indecisiveness ineffectiveness and more politics,
26 Frase (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 09:21 pm Report abuse
Briton, I was replying to Think's counter-hypothetical situation, I was using Denmark and Sweden to represent Egypt and Tunisia.

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that if we didn't sell them arms, then someone else would, so we may as well make some money out of it. People trafficking could be a nice little earner, someone else is making money from it, so why don't we?

It was a no-win situation regarding the intervention though, if nothing had been done and thousands had been slaughtered, the criticism would be 'How could you stand by idly and let this happen?', and intervening it is of course 'stop meddling in other countries affairs'.
27 briton (#) Mar 23rd, 2011 - 09:25 pm Report abuse
thank you frase, now i got it.
i agree that someone somewhere will sell anything if their is money in it,
as you say, a no-win situation, mind you the TV did mention the likes of zimbabwe last night, what odd would you give ??

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!

Advertisement