October 26, 2006

Mexico, 27 OAS nations declare opposition to border fence

From our who cares department:

Mexico, supported by 27 other nations, made a declaration at the Organization of American States slamming U.S. plans to build hundreds of miles (kilometers) of fence on its southern border.

The declaration, read aloud Wednesday at the OAS headquarters in Washington, said the barriers would not solve the immigration problem and urged the U.S. government to rethink its position, according to press releases from the OAS and Mexican foreign ministry.

The 28 nations express "deep concern regarding the decision adopted by the United States of America to build and extend a wall on its border with Mexico, considering it to be a unilateral measure that goes against the spirit of understanding," it said in the declaration, which was read out by Mexico's Ambassador Alejandro Garcia Moreno...

In a surprisingly gutsy move, the U.S. representative to the OAS decided against supporting the declaration. Mexico will also take its complaints to the United Nations.

Mexico's co-signers are:

Antigua, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Granada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, San Kitts and Nevis, San Lucia, San Vicente, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela

Posted to Immigration at October 26, 2006 10:14 AM

Comments

The USSR didn't like SDI much either, as I recall. For all of this talk about who "the enemy" is (generally described as "Islamo-Fascists" by people like Michael Medved and the other Bush-bots) I think an excellent case could be made that the Mexican government is in point of fact an antagonistic regime. We waste all sorts of time on Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-il, when in fact a threat exists immediately to our south. Kim may have a actual nuclear weapon, but Mexico has a nuclear device of the demographic variety, and has made it clear that they have no qualms about using it. In practical terms, what is the difference between Iran's statements about wiping Israel out and what Mexico wants to do to us? The only difference I see is in the length of time it will take and the levels of violence that may be involved at any given time.

Posted by: Gary at October 26, 2006 12:13 PM

They don't like our fence, so I guess they won't be seeking foreign aide from us either. Bunch of third world leeches. I wonder how many of them enforce their borders?

Posted by: llih at October 26, 2006 03:33 PM

Understanding is a two way street. To condemn us without acknowleging our right as a sovereign nation, and our economic and security concerns and to do it in a venue that includes a country like Venezuela, which has been manifestly hostile to U.S. interests, is an outrage. What does Mexico hope to accomplish? It can only make Congress and the American people resist any movement towards conciliation.

Taking the issue to the U.N. is not only futile but antagonistic as well, as the most powerful nations, even our enemies are not going to side with Mexico. Imagine Russia and China, whose human right records of late are poor, siding with what they'd perceive as an attack on the internal affairs of another power by the U.N. It would legitimize and set precedence for the same in their countries. Look for an embarrassing defeat of any motions by the Mexican embassador.

Posted by: George at October 27, 2006 05:08 AM

'Understanding' is an ersatz ideal when it means sympathy for, and compromise with, hostiles. You can easily have too much of that kind of understanding; therefore it is not ideal.
Hitler didn't need 'understanding', neither did Stalin, Mao, Tojo or Pol Pot. They needed to be seen through, not pussyfooted with.
Likewise the bribocracies to the south, they need to be seen through, not given 'understanding' as if their damaging intentions towards us were decent.

Posted by: John S Bolton at October 28, 2006 01:25 AM