Saturday, December 3rd 2011 - 08:56 UTC

Correa says OAS should have been disarticulated in 1982 when the Malvinas war

Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa again questioned the existence of the Organization of American States, OAS, which should have been disarticulated in 1982 during the Falklands/Malvinas war and insisted that the region’s problems “should be discussed in the region and not in Washington”.

Ecuadorean president: region’s problems should be discussed in the region not in Washington

Correa who is in Caracas for the CELAC (Community of Latinamerican and Caribbean States) summit said that the inter-American system has “many shortcomings, not from the current administration (of Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza) but from its own structure”, the Organization of American States.

He went on to say that in 1982 during the Malvinas war when Argentina and the UK clashed over the South Atlantic Islands “OAS should have come to an end because the Inter-American Reciprocal Protection Treaty, TIAR, was violated when Washington did not support a member country, but rather an outer region country”.

“We need deep changes to the current system and build a Latinamerican model, where we can discuss the problems of the region in the region and not in Washington and according to our own circumstances”, underlined the Ecuadorean president.

Correa pointed out the paradox of the OAS Inter American Human Rights Commission, CIDH which was born “to defend citizens from dictatorships and now those same groups which supported the dictatorships are the ones accusing progressive governments that are changing the previous precarious situation of Latinamerica”.

Correa was referring to his ongoing dispute with the owners of the Ecuadorean media whom he accuses of manipulating public opinion and has combated them with very strict and controversial legislation which has led to appeals to the CIDH.

Finally the Ecuadorean president regretted that the “OAS historically has served the interests of the United States to the extent that Cuba was expulsed because of the Revolution, but nothing of the sort happened in Chile when the bloody coup and dictatorship of General Pinochet”.

Likewise President Hugo Chavez anticipated that Celac would become a ‘pole of power’ which with time will leave behind the ‘old and worn out OAS’.

“Celac must become a political union and on that political union we shall build a great pole of power in the XXI century”, promised Chavez who is hosting leaders from 33 Latinamerican and Caribbean countries.

Chavez compared the new organization with OAS which brings together all the countries of the three Americans with the exception of Cuba, kicked out in 1962.

“OAS is the ancient regime, a space manipulated and dominated by the US, crippled by the old” while Celac is born “with a new spirit like a weapon of political, economic and social integration”.

However he was also cautious saying that ruling or prevailing ideologies in the region’s different countries have nothing to do with Celac.

“Forget ideologies, Celac is an independent process, independent from Cuban Socialism, from Venezuelan Socialism or from the ideology that the Brazilian government might be promoting, or the governments from Colombia, Nicaragua…”

 

25 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 (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 09:10 am Report abuse
The Treaty talked about a Member being attacked. Not attacking !
2 ManRod (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 10:24 am Report abuse
totally agree, though he's also confusing some things. The TIAR was ALWAYS a contract based on the DEFENSE of american soil, and not an instrument to “force” it's members to support invasion “adventures”.
3 Sergio Vega (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 11:55 am Report abuse
Rafaelito as a little minded man can´t understand that “progresive” countries are those where their people have progress, so all the leftist ruled coutries are out of this clasification, like Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Boliva, etc....those countries fall in the category of “regressive”.
If the club is clled OAS, it must contain all teh American countries, so USA & Canada must be in.
The goal of this “tontitos” is to divide the American countries to get the leadership but they have no fingers for the piano.....they are limited IQ populist that lead their countries (and their people) to the cliff.
Please, just read the information about the development of those “pro-regressive” countries from responsibles organizations.
This “humanoid” Ecuadorian must clean his mouth before say a word over Gral. Pinochet and his Gvt., too much successful than his own mismanagement.
4 GeoffWard2 (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 12:19 pm Report abuse
It seems that Chavez and his 'Bolivarian' allies are in a real hurry to split the Latin Americas away from the Caucasian Americas. To split off the Wanna-bes from the Can-dos.
I guess his recent clear sight of his own mortality has caused him to hurry along the Great Revolution.

The Americas NEED the drive of the North.
For too many generations the Americas south of the border have frittered away their advantages and lived the dilletante lifestyle.
This is not recent, von Koseriz describes the 'Brasilian condition' as exemplified by Rio, as far back as the 1880s.
The 'Germanic work-ethic' is a rare sight indeed across the Central, Southern and Carribean Americas.

You can have the 'Bolivarian' Latin 'South', but you must leave, along the way, all aspirations to become Developed across this geographic swathe.
5 Forgetit87 (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 12:24 pm Report abuse
“Correa pointed out the paradox of the OAS Inter American Human Rights Commission, CIDH which was born “to defend citizens from dictatorships and now those same groups which supported the dictatorships are the ones accusing progressive governments that are changing the previous precarious situation of Latinamerica”.”

Very correct, Mr. Correa. But as you know, a dictatorship is only a dictatorship if Uncle Sam doesn't approve of it.

“Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and [snip] I would not refer to him as a dictator.”
--- US VP Joe Biden.
6 Forgetit86 (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 01:03 pm Report abuse
“It seems that Chavez and his 'Bolivarian' allies are in a real hurry to split the Latin Americas away from the Caucasian Americas. To split off the Wanna-bes from the Can-dos.”

Don't complain when I call you a racist, Geoff. Why, btw, are you so angry? Why does it offend you so much that people are less interested in keeping a partnership with a rotting and increasingly crazy country such as the US? Some days ago I apologized for making very derisive towards you. The urge of making those comments is rushing back, and next time I won't apologizing. If that's what you think of OUR countries - countries you have contributed nothing to - you should go back to your own. Or do you fear that you financial conditions will be even worse in your great country than in its Wanna-Be you've been living on (or off)?
7 GeoffWard2 (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 04:53 pm Report abuse
“But as you know, a dictatorship is only a dictatorship if Uncle Sam doesn't approve of it.” Forgetit #5.

You don't actually believe what you say. At least I give you this much credit.
You will also remember my posting about the over-simplistic nature of “my enemy's enemy is my friend”.

It is becoming increasingly hard to maintain and develop relationships when the world is becoming ('ethically') polarised into the 'democratic', the centralist 'communist', and the religious fundimentalists.

These factions seem to be fighting over the assets of those with the 'minor' beliefs - fighting over their souls, even.
And much of Latin America falls into this 'minor belief' rag-bag.
So much so that there seems to be nothing fundimental in the belief-systems of Latin America at all! Perhaps dictatorships are somewhat fundimental, but would we advocate them as belief-systems?

You should look again at what the great works say about two things - Racism and Bolivarism. Your comment on the former is way off beam and your lack of comment on the latter speaks volumes.
The Germanic perspective from which my comments emanate are from a family ancestor, Carl von Kosteritz (1830-90), 'Imagems do Brasil', Publ. 1980, Universidade de São Paulo.
8 Fido Dido (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 05:17 pm Report abuse
“Latin Americas away from the Caucasian Americas.”

Geoff, America (The Americas)= North, Central, Caribbean and South America. Always been and always will be one continent, no matter how hard people try to divide them. Latin Americans (Latin languages:Portuguese,Spanish, Italian French, (Romanian) ) are also caucasion and let's not forget, many Latin Americans are from Anglo/Germanic decended. Haven't you been taught that ad your government school in the UK? Sadly, it seems you haven't been taught well, and must hurt your feelings now..huh.

“The 'Germanic work-ethic' is a rare sight indeed across the Central, Southern and Carribean Americas.”

rare sight for you Geoff, again I adviced you many times, travel inside the country you live in to discover that it isn't a rare side and also travel more ousite the country you live in, to educate yourself.

“Don't complain when I call you a racist, Geoff.”

Forget, he isn't a racist in this case, he's just showing off his “intelligence and frustration”.

Not only in the US (what is't a pure/100% caucasian nation at all and never was) the culture of what they inherited from those Brits is fading away, also in the UK what hurts geoff the most. As you can read clearly, he HATES it that the world is changing in front of his eyes. The UK and US don't matter anymore and that is (a sad reality fact) for some people.
9 Think (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 05:19 pm Report abuse
(6) Forgetit86

“Mr. GeoffWard” reminds me, somehow, of a Brahmin gentleman I once met in Madras.

An remarkably intelligent, highly educated and extremely agreeable individual he was.

Until issues like the Caste System or the bad Karma of the Dhobis, Chamars and Bhangis were argued about.

Quite disturbing to witness his instantaneous transmutation into a beast………….
10 Forgetit87 (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 05:47 pm Report abuse
“You don't actually believe what you say. At least I give you this much credit.”
That's precisely what I feel. Biden's quote on Mubarak proves it. This is also proven by Correa's example: that OAS's anti-dictatorship clause applied to Cuba's socialist regime, but to none of Latin America's right-wing dictatorships. Now, YOU prove me now that the US is a fair country when it comes to assessing other nations on their own merits.

”It is becoming increasingly hard to maintain and develop relationships when the world is becoming ('ethically') polarised into the 'democratic', the centralist 'communist', and the religious fundimentalists.“

There's no such division based on ideology. What we see instead is that, with the US weakness, countries are looking for new partnerships; they're mostly based on geography or economic interests, not ideology. Germany, for example, is moving closer to Russia, a very different country when it comes to constitution and culture. The stupid always like to put race, culture and ideology in matters in which they play no role. As said, however, enduring partnerships are based on more than that. Rejoice: the Latin American communist bloc is but a fantasy of your mind.

”So much so that there seems to be nothing fundimental in the belief-systems of Latin America at all! Perhaps dictatorships are somewhat fundimental, but would we advocate them as belief-systems?“
Are you high?

”You should look again at what the great works say about two things - Racism and Bolivarism. Your comment on the former is way off beam and your lack of comment on the latter speaks volumes.
The Germanic perspective from which my comments emanate are from a family ancestor, Carl von Kosteritz (1830-90), 'Imagems do Brasil', Publ. 1980, Universidade de São Paulo.”
Yeah, you ARE high, and this apparently only worsens your inability to put clichés and trifles aside when discussing real world matters.
11 Forgetit86 (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 06:20 pm Report abuse
“Forget, he isn't a racist in this case, he's just showing off his “intelligence and frustration”. ”

Perhaps you're right. I forget how Geoff's thought is informed, not by facts, but by clichés and memes - for example, that of hard-working Germanics.

The facts however are:
1 - Southern Europe as a whole works more than Northern Europe;
2 - Northern Europe as a whole is not more conservative or more rational than Southern Europe (or Latin America, for that matter). They aren't any as frugal than they style themselves to be. Germany's public debt to GDP ratio, for example, is larger than Spain's; and its primary budget surpluses have been smaller than Italy's (Italy's, for Christ's sakes!). Other Germanic countries also have similarly unflattering indicators. British external debt, for example, is 5 times larger than its GDP. In recent history, no large Latin American country, not even Argentina during the early 2000s crisis, has produced such bad numbers. And the US situation I believe everyone is familiarized with by now. This 'superpower' has been reduced to borrowing from (or rather 'selling bonds' to) Third World countries (including some Latin American ones), in order to remain solvent. Yet this Geoff has the nerve of saying Latin Americans are the ones living dilettantes' lives. He can only be malicious. Either that, or he's stupid.
12 GeoffWard2 (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 06:56 pm Report abuse
Still no words of support for Bolivarism, guys?

This would appear to be what you are signing up to . . . . perhaps Latin America IS going to have its belief-system, after all.
13 Forgetit86 (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 07:03 pm Report abuse
I think my own position is clear: countries should, and are, moving towards partnerships and regional alliances based on common interests - not on shared ideology. What use is it then to criticize neighbors for having chosen different paths? Venezuela's Bolivarianism doesn't bother me any more than Brazil's mish-mash of social democracy and monetarism should bother Venezuelans. Those who want to emphasize irrelevant differences, are people like you: people who want to weaken integration and keep Latin America forever attached to, and dependent on, the “better”, 'Caucasian' America.
14 Think (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 08:50 pm Report abuse
(13)
Hear, hear.
15 O gara (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 09:19 pm Report abuse
CABALLEROS.what really upsets Geoffrey and pushes him to show his unsophisticated side is the more relationships built within Latinamerica are driving trade at a remarkable rate.Brasil and.Argentinas trade is a perfect example.Geoffrey would have us beleive that Argentina is the more dependant of the two when Brasil is one of the few countries that has a trade surplus with BA.The reality is what we are witnessing is what Europe had in the 1950s/60s with ever closer relationships leading to.a trade explosion.What gives Latinamerican unity even more potential is the much closer cultural and language ties.
16 Redhoyt (#) Dec 03rd, 2011 - 11:37 pm Report abuse
Interesting piece in Time magazine - concludes that the Latin nations will actually lose influence from this split.

globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/12/02/latin-americas-celac-summit-a-definitive-rejection-of-the-u-s/
17 Think (#) Dec 04th, 2011 - 08:31 am Report abuse
(16) Chuckle chuckle®, Mr. Redhoyt....

”Interesting piece in TIME magazine” about Latin-America, you say………
It ”Concludes that the Latin nations will actually lose influence from this split”, you say…............

Here’s for you………….

An interesting piece in Ronald McDonald’s website
It concludes that eating fast food is actually healthy for you.
www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food_quality/nutrition_choices.html

Enjoy.
18 Forgetit87 (#) Dec 04th, 2011 - 10:35 am Report abuse
Hahahaha :)
19 Philippe (#) Dec 04th, 2011 - 11:32 am Report abuse
Mr. “know-all” Correa ought to be told that the TIAR did not work because the Falkland Islands did not invade Argentina! Of course, Argentina was the aggressor, and in this instance the TIAR was absolutely unable to endorse her “occupation in order to negotiate.”

Philippe
20 yankeeboy (#) Dec 04th, 2011 - 12:43 pm Report abuse
I find it hilarious that from one side of their mouth “they” (Bolivarians) can say that we need to stay out of their business and with the other they try to extract $/concessions from us. What a bunch of banana republic nonsense. The “bolivarian” experiment will die once the poison that is killing Chavez actually works (they say 6 months tops) even Cuba is becoming more capitalistic to survive. What jokers.
21 Redhoyt (#) Dec 04th, 2011 - 03:16 pm Report abuse
Well it is ! ... isn't it?

Certainly healthier than not eating at all :-)

Still, if the South Americans wish to segregate themsleves from any real influence in the world - up to them, as we say around her !
22 Forgetit87 (#) Dec 04th, 2011 - 03:42 pm Report abuse
Redhoyt shows his depth by taking his clues from a single blog post.

I won't even read the article, RH, because just by your description it looks preposterous. Latin America never enjoyed influence through its “partnership” (what partnership, btw?) with the US. Mutually beneficial partnerships between smaller or weaker countries and powerful ones can only be forged when both groups share interests. Economically, politically and otherwise Latin America and the US are very different: they have different needs, and thus share no interests. In other words, Latin America has little to gain from closeness with that country. In fact, such types of partnership generally end up with one, the stronger, exploiting the other in a number of ways - for example, by pushing for preferential trade agreements, but only in sectors that the stronger one excels at (this is what the US tried to do with the failed FTAA).

The idea that Celac will be burying any influence acquired via partnership with the US is ludicrous as such influence has never existed. The 90s were perhaps the best decade to US-LatAm relations. But tell me: apart from unemployment, the rise of drug cartels, and a financial crisis after another, what did LatAm inherited from those times? Economically and otherwise, LatAm did far better in the 2000s, a decade that was not so good for US-LatAm relations.
23 Cruzansailor (#) Dec 04th, 2011 - 03:49 pm Report abuse
Note to Dicktator Correa: The Argentine Dickheads attacked the British Dickheads.
24 xbarilox (#) Dec 04th, 2011 - 11:14 pm Report abuse
@ 21 we're doing it without you, and without the islanders in South America. Remember, it's the UK in need of South America, not South America in need of the UK.

www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-04/u-k-public-sector-pensions-need-urgent-reform-hutton-says.html

@ 20 you're so worried. why? worry about your country, it's a mess of poverty, deaths, and who knows what else.

www.fitsnews.com/2011/09/13/us-incomes-shrink-poverty-rises/
25 M_of_FI (#) Dec 05th, 2011 - 01:52 pm Report abuse
Oh the irony! I do enjoy reading the Argentine comments about the “impending economic doom” of Britain. Don’t the Argies realise how much of a permanent mess their economy is in due to constant economic mismanagement, incompetency and corruption? At least Britain enjoyed a boom! And they will enjoy one in the future, while Argentina continues to fail to pay its debts....to finance organisations partly funded by Britain....................

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