Comments on: Déjà Vu in Venezuelan-Colombian Relations, as War of Words Reignites: What Next for Chávez?

By: Luis

Luis — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:11:12 +0000

Chavez's day are counted! No doubt!

By: M Wilson

M Wilson — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:53:05 +0000

As long as Chavez wishes to keep any sort of democratic legitimacy in Venezuela, there will be no war and I suspect that public pressure will rise to return trade relations back to normal. In some ways this echoes the great shift in the US when it elected Bill Clinton over George H W Bush. While a platform based on foreign policy offers a temporary solution, domestic politics will always retake the stage. It's the economy, stupid.

By: M Wilson

M Wilson — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:52:32 +0000

Obviously this is a sensitive issue and I think that people need to see that bias of some sort will always make its way into articles like this. To try to make something completely "objective" would leave us with a toothless piece that would spend more time trying to demonstrate its objectivity than making a real important point.

What interests me most about this piece is actually a somewhat minor point. As part of my thesis I am working on, I'm studying Democratic Peace Theory in South America. What I see happening is Chavez running into the classic problem of DPT. Chavez is obviously trying to saber rattle in order to shift focus away from domestic politics at the expense of Colombia and the US. However, as is the trend when talking about DPT, the population will not mobilize to support an actual war. I tend to agree that neither the US nor Colombia pose a serious threat at present time. As the author points out, it would be political suicide for Obama to propose any sort of military action and Colombia is more interested in trade than a costly war, or even a major arms race and reshaping of its military from a drug hunting force to one prepared to engage in cross boarder fighting.

By: El Cid

El Cid — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:12:47 +0000

How on Earth you think that's a comparable situation, I don't now. If instead of *buying* tanks from Russia, Venezuela had allowed *Russia* to send tank brigades to begin operating on Venezuelan soil, *then* it would be comparable. C'mon, can't you even *pretend* to be paying attention?

By: guest

guest — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:59:54 +0000

Or if Venezuela were to buy 300 tanks from Russia and begin massing them on the borders with Colombia….oh wait

By: ElJefe

ElJefe — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:43:55 +0000

HA HAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's a funny comment. How exactly is the United States the heir to European fascism? The last I heard, the U.S. didn't stress personality cults, demonize the past and glorify their national heroes to the point of making them into demi-gods, all traits of fascism. However, some of these characteristics are alive and well in Venezuela. I find it hilarious that people forget Chavez's close connections to Norberto Ceresole, an Argentinian political philosopher who aided Chavez in his 1998 campaign and is considered by many to be an apologist for Galtieri and his junta. Where do people like Mr. Herz come out of? What fantasy world do they live in?

By: Chris Herz

Chris Herz — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:44:32 +0000

It is natural and so understandable for US citizens to be reluctant to concede that their own country and their own leaders are successors to the European fascism of the 1930's. No one understands how painful it is to feel so about one's own nation better than myself. But a scholar owes an unshakable duty to truth and we have to conclude that the USA and its Latin friends like Colombia do not play a positive role in any of this and cannot.
Chavez' Venezuela are determined to gain control of their borders and to secure their oil reserves for the benefit of their own citizens. This is not an acceptable situation in Washington, and thus not in Bogota.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:23:54 +0000

It looks like Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution is failing. Like all dictators when you are encountering a lot of domestics problems you need to create distraction. I would not be surprised if Chavez goes on Alo Presidente and blames all of Venezuela's problems on Colombia and The United States. Its going to be interesting on how the MERCOSUR countries are going to react.

By: Guillaume

Guillaume — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:06:18 +0000

The sad thing is that Colombia plays the victim and COHA author Guy Hursthouse dances to their tune. A study of Colombian foreign policy and its history of lobbying will show that is exactly their aim.

So thanks for lending a helping hand. It is fine time that the issue of causality, and not warped and vulgar ahistoricism, start permeating the day-to-day thinking of journalists and think tank "analysts" alike. Maybe next time, hey?

By: Guillaume

Guillaume — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:05:24 +0000

Warped causality. Extremely biased analysis. Terrible article!

It is evidently Colombia which is destabilising South American politics and sabotaging -now completely openly- UNASUR, (on whose orders, we may ask). It is Colombia's 50 year-old internal conflict, its export of violence to the region, which continues to hamper the region's diplomacy and peaceful integration process; not to mention its fostering of a crisis of refugees on an unprecedented scale in Latin America and its absolutely horrendous human rights record, which does not compare to any other country in South America, and bears no resemblence whatsoever with the relatively politically peaceful Venezuela.

Venezuela, the victim of a US -and most definitely Colombia- supported coup in 2002, has good reason to feel threatened. In Latin America, we all do. The pretext of the war on drugs has after all been a very efficient tool brandished by US foreign policy makers for the purpose of replacing old enemies (the red menace) by new enemies (the narco threat). Withough enemies there is no possible justification for hegemony, especially of the military kind.