Secretary Clinton Meets With Uruguayan President-elect Jose Mujica

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
March 1, 2010
Secretary Clinton Meets with Jose Mujica, the President-elect of Uruguay
Secretary Clinton With the President of Uruguay, Tabaré Vázquez
Secretary Clinton Meets with Uruguayan Women Legislators
Secretary Clinton is Presented with a Gift by Lucía Topolansky, Future First-lady of Uruguay, After Meeting with Women Legislators
Secretary Clinton Poses for a Photograph with Uruguayan Women Legislators
Secretary Clinton Speaks with the Uruguayan Press
Secretary Clinton Meets U.S. Ambassador to Uruguay David Nelson upon Arrival in Montevideo

Interactive Travel Map|Text the Secretary | Trip Page

This morning, Secretary Clinton met with Uruguayan President-elect Jose Mujica. Secretary Clinton said, "I am honored to be here on behalf of President Obama and the United States of America. We join you in celebrating the strength of Uruguayan democracy and the progress that your country has made and we know will continue to make in the future."

The Secretary continued, "I wish to not only congratulate the president-elect and the new government, but to applaud the way in which the government is unifying and bringing together even opposition parties to work on behalf of the people of Uruguay. Indeed, Uruguayans are rightly proud of their leaders and their democracy and this peaceful and orderly transition of power brought about by an election. Indeed, your country, President-elect Mujica, is a model for many others not only in our hemisphere but throughout the world.

"I thank Uruguay for the peacekeepers that you send in large numbers compared to your population. I commend you for the leadership role you are playing as the chair of the Friends of Haiti group. And as you and I discussed, sir, we will be working with you in partnership on behalf of education, science and technology, business, trade, and investment.

"So again, sir, it is a deep privilege for me to be back in Uruguay 12 years after my first visit, and to see some familiar faces, but mostly to congratulate you, your new government, and the resolve and democratic values of the people of your country."

Secretary Clinton also reflected on the earthquake in Chile and offered the United States' thoughts and prayers to the people of Chile. The Secretary said, "I will be in Santiago tomorrow to meet with President Bachelet and President-elect Piñera to work with the government and people of Chile in solidarity in recovery from this earthquake."Full Text

Read more about the earthquake in Chile here.

Comments

Comments

Patrick
|
Maryland, USA
March 2, 2010

Patrick in Maryland writes:

How's Everyone doing this Monday..:)

I see Hillary is out of the country again.
I hope everything is going well on her latest
adventure..:). I have to say, she has alot
more energy than i do. I get jet lag after a
short 8 hour plane ride...:)

The meetings she had with the Presidents of
Uruguay and the Women Legislators at the Legislative Palace .Seem to have a positive
theme, or atmosphere about our countries
working together more in the near future.

..See ..Ya.. :)

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
March 2, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I don't know why it is that it seems inevitably constant that conflicts with no clear military winner come back to haunt the parties involved, and the Argentine/UK dust-up over the Faulklands is but the most recent example of this pattern of probability noted.

Ok, my solution is simple...share the wealth.

BP (or whoever the UK contracts) extracts the oil, and builds a refinery in Argentina, so both governments may create jobs and profit economicly.

Hopefully funding ecological restoration projects out of this as a very "intended concequence" of reinvestment capability and partnership.

That way I think the soveregnity of both can save face.

So as to not provoke mutual resentment, or their public's.

I'll leave it at this, because the details are in the hands of others, if they choose that path.

The other leads them nowhere quickly.

palgye
|
South Korea
March 2, 2010

Palgye in South Korea writes:

Dear to Secretary Hillary Clinton.(Sec?, more)

Thinks the quite beautiful photograph.

" EU" Strengthens the economic community more and the economic crisis which occurs from Europe does not spread out at the outside and not to make be said but that must make the fence, thinks that the yet many support is necessary. For the support of eastern Europe from...

Thinks that strengthens an alliance the organization or the person which specifies is necessary. Thinks that too the confrontation is too feeble about the actuality which is clear. Who is fabricates and thinks that there is a possibility which will collapse too easily.

With the intervention which is active the expression where the confrontation which is politic is active is accurate is not but, thinks that is similar. Thinks that "a mole"
keeps off the force of the wave weaken.

Was a before 16 years ago. Remembers a sick history again, is unpleasant. Is an opinion which is personal. Makes a motion in all decisions and thinks that is following. Only thought is doing as it is. Thinks that silence to the description below which will split the ability lacks yet from actuality. Frankly received a help and (received but, rather only use does.) Thinks is. Is shy but, sorry.( Probably, appears the thing to be suffering a punishment. Is like that but, this problem thinks that must talk. )

P.S
The branch thinks the equity which is fixed. the thing method. The equity which is fixed.

Hyun-Joo
March 2, 2010

Hyun-Joo writes:

France is satisfied in current position and Germany the method which persuades (nightmare of terror?)Thinks that is.

And quick is complex in many kinds problem and the features which does a paragraph one confrontation is answer thinks.

Flavius
|
Virginia, USA
March 2, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

Please define victory conditions for either side in Falklands War which would settle the issue once and for all.

It seems to me that the Brits pretty much won that one. Argentines invade, get kicked out, sue for peace.

The only way the Argentines would have given up their claims to the Malvinas would have been the destruction of Argentina. This is a national issue for Argentina. It is in their constitution for heaven's sake. Oil brings things to a head rather more quickly than sheep, but they did it in the eighties for sheep without knowing whether there was oil there or not.

Moreover, the Argentines don't give a whit about what the residents of the Falklands/Malvinas think. The Argentines give a legal argument on the web. Last I heard, however, Falklanders are near 100% pro British.

The only way this gets resolved for Argentina is for the Falklands to become the Malvinas. Or if Argentina ceases to exist.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
March 3, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Flavius,

Go back in time as far as you wish and look through the history, the Faulklands has been problematic for all who've laid claim to it. It wasn't for sheep the military junta invaded, but to bolster popular opinion through nationalism. Nothing like a good little war to distract from their failings. In the end it didn't save them politically.

So after the Brits surrendered and then caused the Argentinians to do the same, I say there were no clear "military winners" because a lot of folks died for political stupidity and it is redily apparent that the sheep have inherited as is often the way with the meek, if you know what I mean. I think the folks that live there now might just agree.

Who owns what is not the definition of victory, but whether the peace is kept well may be the definition you seek. Then there's the simple solution I proposed which might secure that peace, once and for all. That is if they actually find oil from the exploratory drilling that's being done.

Best to find agreement between the parties before they find any oil I think.

palgye
|
South Korea
March 3, 2010

Palgye in South Korea writes:

Uruguayan congratulates President-elect Jose Mujica elections. The argument evades and thinks the thing which will be the possibility of doing a many work with mutual cooperation.

Thank you.

Flavius
|
Virginia, USA
March 3, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

You have evaded the question. You stated:

"I don't know why it is that it seems inevitably constant that conflicts with no clear military winner come back to haunt the parties involved, and the Argentine/UK dust-up over the Faulklands is but the most recent example of this pattern of probability noted."

Please define "clear military victory" in the case of the last Falklands war. Clear. Military. Victory. For either side.

I know why Argentina went to war the last time, Thank you for reexplaining it to me.

This thing about the British "surrendering" suggests that you think they shouldn't have stopped until they got to Buenos Aires, much as you have said about the first Gulf War. Am I wrong?

Would you have stood with MacArthur in Korea and Patton in Germany? We "certainly" could have avoided all the ugliness of the past sixty five years if we had just gone "all the way" as they both suggested.

How I long for an emperor...

Flavius
|
Virginia, USA
March 3, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

Eric, I appreciate your reply to my last post regarding the function of Dipnote. I didn't see it until today due to SNOWMAGEDDON, or as some called it, SNOWTORIUS B.I.G. There was a lot of Dipnote that went under the bridge during that time, so our discussion got lost in the blizzard. I had to go digging to find it, much as I had to dig for the car, the mailbox, and that Saturday paper that got delivered just before three inches an hour.

This does not mean, however, that I'm going to go easy on you from here on out. Nor you I, or so I hope. :)

Cheers.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
March 5, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Flavius,

I tend to choose my words well for a reason.

"victory" for whom? politicians, or people?

Perhaps you misunderstood that "victory" may be defined as a lasting peace for all intents and purposes.

So long as militaries are not beating the snot out of each other, that may be defined as a "victory" for the people of both nations, eh?

The pattern I've noted may hold true in many cases of conflict.

Maybe it's just human nature that is to blame.

As for "evading the question" I rather think I posed a very important one arising from observation, the answer to which may be essential to conflict resolution in general.

I pose "no complaint without solution".

(chuckle) Try the CTBT thread, there's a party in the making, and you're invited.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
March 5, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Flavius,

RE:
"This thing about the British "surrendering" suggests that you think they shouldn't have stopped until they got to Buenos Aires, much as you have said about the first Gulf War. Am I wrong?"

It is dangerous to assume what I think, Flavius (chuckle).

In a word...no that is not what I was talking about.

The blow-by-blow account of the conflict will explain the truth of my statement.

"So after the Brits surrendered and then caused the Argentinians to do the same, I say there were no clear "military winners" because a lot of folks died for political stupidity and it is redily apparent that the sheep have inherited as is often the way with the meek, if you know what I mean."

palgye
|
South Korea
March 8, 2010

Palgye in South Korea writes:

sorry, Uruguay and Korean-Girl(Is a parole condition and waits a justice)

Thinks brain teaser. Because, difficulty will be about the chart of thanks could not, but again also like this talk does thinks that to is difficult. Only link raises as it is.

"cafe.daum.net/onlyforhan"

The specific authorizations and the people concerned why will entrust in me?

Thinks, the time thay enterprise begin. from, the bat fat and cunning.

Latest Stories

Pages