MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Kirchner praises Chilean Senate approval of Unasur Constitutive Treaty
Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) Secretary-General, Néstor Kirchner, celebrated the Chilean Senate's approval of the regional organization's Constitutive Treaty and highlighted the “compromise” of Chile with the “unity of South America.” Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“Kirchner said the treaty's ratification “in our brother Chile's parliament is nothing more than the approval of said country and its people of the unity of South America.”
Sep 11th, 2010 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our Brother Chile's parlament.................
A not very known fact is that Mr. Kirchner is half Chilean....... And he even masters the sweet ”Punta Arenas” accent.....
Viva Chile Mie***
I've neger got this Argentina-Chile rivalry. Does that have something to do with the Pinochet-Thatcher thing?
Sep 11th, 2010 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(2) Forgetit87
Sep 11th, 2010 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “rivalry” precedes the Pinochet / Tatcher period......
It's more prevalent in men with small brains, hearts and dicks.......
Lol :)
Sep 11th, 2010 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0GOOD JOB CHILE, WE'RE PROUD OF YOU
Sep 11th, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Seven down, five more to go
Think. Sergio?
Sep 11th, 2010 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil and Suriname will sign it, of that I have no doubt. So, there are 3 more to go. I have my doubts about Colombia and Peru. Under Uribe, Colombia would not sign it. Under Santos, I am more confident, though. I don't know about Peru. About the smaller guys, Uruguay and Paraguay, I'm not quite sure either. Paraguayan Congress is dominated by some quite intransigent opposition.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would rather not celebrate anything that isn't 100% official, especially here on MercoPress with so many users whose sole purpose is to fly around like vultures all they long hoping you'll make a mistake.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 02:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, I do believe that eventually all remaining countries will approve, the only country I would worry about is Colombia. I'm surprised Brazil hasn't approved already.
Correction to previous post: there are yet more four to go.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0About Colombia, I'm less worried than I am about Peru. The current Colombian president has shown himself to be a politican altogether different from the previous one. From the beginning he has announced he would make regional integration a priority in his foreign policy. Quite the opposite of Uribe. This one did his most to weaken Unasur and to involve the US and the OAS in regional affairs.
As for Peru, its current president, Alan García, is much like Uribe in his stances about regional integration. Some years ago there was a summit involving LatAm leaders, the First Summit of Latin America and the Caribbean. It was the first summit ever where no US or European representative was invited. Of all 33 LatAm and Caribbean leaders, only three missed the reunion: Uribe, García and the El Salvador president. Instead they sent lower-ranking officials to represent their respective countries.
As for Brazil, I don't think there has been an official request by Unasur to that country yet. It seems Kirchner is sending such invitation one by one.
[all day long] not 'they', oops there goes one for the vultures
Sep 12th, 2010 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Quite the opposite of Uribe. This one did his most to weaken Unasur and to involve the US and the OAS in regional affairs.” Right, that's why I had doubts about Colombia. Thanks for clearing that up, I'm not familiar with the current policies of the Colombian government.
Does Brazil need an official invitation? Seems to me like Brazil is just as involved as any of the other countries. And Peru, living itself as the only country in the region not to ratify UNASUR would seem illogical. I guess all of these countries must go through the process of integration at their own pace and on their own terms, nothing wrong with that.
Fernando,
Sep 12th, 2010 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think all countries, before ratifying the treaty, need to be officially requested to do so. That's just the protocol. In Brazil there's no opposition to ratifying the accord, either at the presidency or at Congress. After all, Unasur is an intellectual creation of Brazil.
As for Peru, you're correct. It would make no sense for it to be the only country to resist the treaty.
I didn't know that. I wonder what Nestor Kirchner is waiting for then, there has to be a reason Brazil hasn't been invited yet.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0September 11.................................1973
Sep 12th, 2010 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0They killed him yesterday..........
Compañero Salvador Allende
Presente!
Rivalry between Argentina & Chile start when our “good” neighbors took our Patagonia from Rio Negro to the South using the argument of the “ocupation ” (sound something others can use it, also)....Don´t forget it !!! And it will be present as along term deal if Argenitna´s Gvts. continue forgetting what they had signed (treatiesw, agreements, etc.) and other light events like the 1979 almost war..
Sep 12th, 2010 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the UNASUR, I´m ashamed on that, because it have been used by the Argentine Gvt. for their own goals and the Secretary General have not the qualification for this position (impossed for the left gvt. that are sinking the LA countries in the mud) UNASUR = CRAP.
The most succesful ecoomic times for Chile were when our country was alone, forced to use our strengh and inventive to go ahead against all the neighbors desires and applying new concepts on the economic developement for a small country.
And related to Salvador Allende, he was the worst president that our history can remember... He destroyed our economic, legal and social democracy in just 3 years leaving us in a sunken nation with a almost civil war, where the extreme left guerrilleros caming from all LA were held by the Gvt., where nobody respected the other......Bad days that fortunately were short term. I hope never ever we can fall in that kind of negative leaders......if not, R.I.P. Chile....!!!!
(6) Ale
Sep 12th, 2010 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(14) is your answer :-)
The “rivalry” precedes the Pinochet / Tatcher period......
It's more prevalent in men with small brains, hearts and dicks.......
Long live the Kirchner/Ostoic Dragnic's family from Punta Arenas.
(Just an “internal joke” to Mr.S. V. Pervan :-)
14 Sergio Vega,
Sep 12th, 2010 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now I understand why your comments tend to support those of Britain and not Argentina, you're one of those Chileans who think the whole Patagonia should be Chilean. You already have most of Tierra Del Fuego, what more do you want?? If it wasn't for the Andes there would be no Chile.
And if going it alone was the best of times for Chile then why did they join UNASUR? Because times change and it's the right thing to do, that's why.
I have nothing against Chileans, you however don't seem to have much vision.
Eastern Patagonia was never chilean and Mapuches were not chileans at the time argentine army took it. Besides, Mapuches came to eastern Patagonia by killing Tehuelches, the truly owners of eastern Patagonia. These pinochet's boot-lickers always twisting history!
Sep 13th, 2010 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The indigenous peoples of the region included the Tehuelches, whose numbers and society were reduced to near extinction not long after the first contacts with Europeans.”
Sep 14th, 2010 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”In the early 19th century the araucanization of the natives of northern Patagonia intensified and a lot of Mapuches migrated to Patagonia to live as nomads raising cattle or pillaging the Argentine countryside. The cattle stolen in the incursions (malones) would later be taken to Chile through the mountain passes and traded for goods, especially alcoholic beverages. The main trail for this trade was called Camino de los chilenos and run a length of about 1000 km from the Buenos Aires Province to the mountain passes of Neuquén Province. The lonco Calfucurá crossed the Andes from Chile to the Pampas around 1830 after a call from the governor of Buenos Aires, Juan Manuel de Rosas, to fight the Boroanos tribe. In 1859 he attacked Bahia Blanca in Argentina with 3,000 warriors.“
”In the 1870s the Conquest of the Desert was a controversial campaign by the Argentine government, executed mainly by General Julio Argentino Roca, to subdue or, some claim, to exterminate the native peoples of the South. By the mid-1880s the campaign's objectives had largely been achieved. While fighting Peru and Bolivia in the War of the Pacific (1879–84) Chile waived most of its claim over the Patagonia in the Boundary treaty of 1881 between Chile and Argentina, in order to ensure Argentina's neutrality. Chilean popular belief sees this as a territorial loss of almost half a million square miles.”
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!