http://latamthought.org/2008/03/09/the-crisis-has-been-overcome/ Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:25:43 -0800 hourly 1 http://latamthought.org/2008/03/09/the-crisis-has-been-overcome/comment-page-1/#comment-59 El tren valencia Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:12:01 +0000 http://latamthought.org/?p=23#comment-59 Chavez has more likely than not suffered yet another international defeat out of his intromission in the Colombia-Ecuador conflict. Indeed. Yet –and it is hard to say to what extent- perhaps all States present at the Rio Summit have lost a different battle, at least in the eyes of international law; a defeat attributable to lack of clarity (call it understanding if you may) of the real issues behind the dispute, and real taken not only in the ontological sense (so often unprofessionally exploited), but in a legal and applied sense -that is, the one that should prevail in these type of meetings. Looking back at the resolution drafted from a previous OAS meeting relating to the subject, and the inexact –to say the very least- understanding of terrorist acts exhibited by Latin American heads of state (from Chavez to Uribe) in their interventions at the summit, one can only draw the conclusion that Latin American leaders are terribly advised, or maybe not at all. It is a shame see the lack of clarity in what are and are not acts of terrorism, and how much weight is given to the trivial subject of recognition or not by one particular head of state (yes, Chaves, I am referring to you). That in mind I would strongly recommend all Latin American government advisors to grab a copy of Security Council Resolutions 1373, 1456, and 1566, especially the latter, so that they can properly advise their leaders on the subject. Likewise, I would like to call on these advisors to remind those who they are advising that it matter not what interpretation they decide to give to acts that fall under the definition provided under Res. 1566, at least not in the eyes of international law… pass the word along. Chavez has more likely than not suffered yet another international defeat out of his intromission in the Colombia-Ecuador conflict. Indeed. Yet –and it is hard to say to what extent- perhaps all States present at the Rio Summit have lost a different battle, at least in the eyes of international law; a defeat attributable to lack of clarity (call it understanding if you may) of the real issues behind the dispute, and real taken not only in the ontological sense (so often unprofessionally exploited), but in a legal and applied sense -that is, the one that should prevail in these type of meetings. Looking back at the resolution drafted from a previous OAS meeting relating to the subject, and the inexact –to say the very least- understanding of terrorist acts exhibited by Latin American heads of state (from Chavez to Uribe) in their interventions at the summit, one can only draw the conclusion that Latin American leaders are terribly advised, or maybe not at all. It is a shame see the lack of clarity in what are and are not acts of terrorism, and how much weight is given to the trivial subject of recognition or not by one particular head of state (yes, Chaves, I am referring to you). That in mind I would strongly recommend all Latin American government advisors to grab a copy of Security Council Resolutions 1373, 1456, and 1566, especially the latter, so that they can properly advise their leaders on the subject. Likewise, I would like to call on these advisors to remind those who they are advising that it matter not what interpretation they decide to give to acts that fall under the definition provided under Res. 1566, at least not in the eyes of international law… pass the word along.

]]>