WOLA's position on Colombia and Venezuela: wrong and rude.

A note by WOLA on the recent special session of the OAS on the Colombia-Venezuela situation exhibits, in my view, a wrong position by this organization. The note starts by saying:
“The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) laments the outcome of yesterday's OAS session, during which Colombia's government charged that Colombian guerrilla groups were present in Venezuelan territory. It is unfortunate that the OAS, which seeks to reduce regional tensions through multilateral diplomacy, became the setting for a tense exchange that led to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ordering a full cutoff in diplomatic relations with Colombia”.
Although it is OK to lament, the reason for lamenting is not. WOLA lament the fact that Colombia has brought to the OAS their concern about the presence of FARC assassins and drug traffickers in Venezuelan territory, under Venezuelan protection. WOLA claim that this presentation “led to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to order a full cutoff in diplomatic relations with Colombia”.

I could not believe my eyes! In the opinion of WOLA the OAS should not be the organization where this extremely serious issue should be discussed. I ask WOLA: Where should Colombia have gone? If Colombia is receiving military attacks from the FARC sanctuaries in Venezuela, as they have claimed and shown, should they keep mum about it? WOLA lament that “a tense exchange developed”. And what, may I ask, is wrong with a tense exchange? Imagine that Adlai Stevenson had not initiated a “tense exchange” at the U.N. in the case of the Soviet missiles in Cuba for fear at Krushev’s cutting off diplomatic relations with this country.
Chavez did not disprove the Colombian accusations. He simply cut off relations because this is the machista way he behaves. Colombia’s was a legitimate protest, given that Colombian citizens are being killed by FARC attacks originating in Venezuela. WOLA worries about Chavez’s reaction but it does not seem to worry about the urgency of the Colombian accusations. A very strange posture, coming from an organization that should defend democracy and freedom in the Americas.
WOLA goes on to say: “While Colombia's concerns may be legitimate, the manner in which they were presented at the OAS session triggered a hostile Venezuelan response”. What manner should have been used ? What other manner should have Colombia used to present these revelations? They showed videos, photos, and coordinates of the FARC camps in Venezuelan territory. If a person or a government wants to prove a point he, they will use the hard data in their possession. There is no other way.
As a result of the Colombian presentation there was nothing that the Chavez representative at the OAS could say. His speech was grotesque. Rarely I have felt so ashamed of a Venezuelan countryman as I felt that day, listening to Mr. Roy Chaderton’s incoherence.
WOLA added: “WOLA holds out hope that the two countries will reconcile after the August 7 inauguration of President-Elect Juan Manuel Santos. This reconciliation should include a high-level, constructive dialogue, leading to concrete steps to improve security cooperation in the two countries' poorly governed border region. This should include a commitment on the part of both countries to protect their citizens and clear the area of all groups, be they the guerrillas, paramilitaries, or narco-trafficking organizations that operate with great freedom on both sides of the border. The countries should also come together to improve protection and assistance for Colombian refugees residing in Venezuela.”
WOLA expects that this issue should be the object of reconciliation, constructive dialogue, etc, once President elect Santos takes over. They seem to suggest that Colombian current President Uribe has artificially created the crisis and that Chavez is just a “victim" of Uribe’s unfair manipulations. WOLA glosses over the fact that this criminal protection of the FARC by Chavez has been going on for some years now, it glosses over the verbal and military attacks on Colombia from Venezuelan territory, the evidence about the camps and the fact that Venezuelan national guards and high level bureaucrats are involved in this confabulation of Chavez and FARC against Colombia. WOLA simply asks for “dialogue” although they should know that dialogue would only serve to perpetuate the status quo.
Are WOLA analysts naïve, blind, or what? I hope they are not what!
The article by WOLA that I received included at the end the following information:
Contact:
Gimena Sanchez, Senior Associate, gsanchez@wola.org; (202) 797-2171
Adam Isacson, Senior Associate, aisacson@wola.org; (202) 797-2171
This looked to me like an invitation to comment. Therefore I did send them a comment but received no reply. When I sent my comment again, adding that I expected a reply, I received a message from Mr. Adam Isacson, the WOLA representative, saying that he had chosen not to reply to me because he could not waste his time answering detractors and that he had better things to do with his time. I have the complete, arrogant and rude answer from this WOLA person, in case is ever needed.
Considering that they sent out their article to me and what I took as an invitation to comment, I find it rather uncivilized that they chose not to reply to me. The reasons given for not doing so, namely, because my comment was not to their liking or I was not worthy of attention, are not valid, in my view.
Therefore, not only I find WOLA’s position on this issue highly debatable but I also consider their representative both arrogant and ill mannered. A think tank exists to allow for exchange of ideas, cannot be a one-way street.
.