Talk:Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance

Rio Protocol

Is this not the same as the Rio Protocalobv (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Signatories -- clarification?

With the exception of the Bahamas, no country that became independent after 1947 has joined the treaty.

How do you square that claim with the presence of Trinidad and Tobago on the list? –Hajor 21:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a better avenue for the article to explore would be to identify those countries which achieved independence after 1947 and yet chose not to join the treaty and their reasons for not doing so. In that respect, Belize is an interesting counter-example, since they arranged affairs to immediately join the treaty upon independence, following a long-running dispute with Guatemala over their national sovereignty. Albanaco 23:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don´t see Belize's ascension to the Treaty. See [1]. --Jorge GG 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This article and a comment above both list Belize among parties to the Rio Treaty, I believe incorrectly.

Breach of Treaty (2)

The United States attacked and invaded a signatary country (Panama) in 1989. This was "clearly against international law" according to a UN resolution SinPantuflas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Breach of Treaty?

Surely the US was not breaching the treaty over the Balkans, as Argentina was not under attack. Britian was simply defending itself against an attack on its territory. --David.Mestel 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Balkans?? You mean Falkland, right?? And yes, neither Argentina nor the UK (the main area) was under attack, so there weren't any violations to the Rio Treaty nor to the NATO one... Smertios 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Football War

The Football War in 1969 was between 2 members; El Salvador attacked Honduras. Do we have any info about this in relation to this treaty, SqueakBox 15:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Act of Chapultepec link in this article leads to same article.

Is this loop intended? Was there a separate Act of Chapultepec article that got merged with this one, something getting screwed in the process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattriculated (talk • contribs) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Numerous Latin American Forces Have and Are Serving in Afghanistan

The article states, "In 2001, the United States invoked the Rio Treaty after the September 11 attacks but Latin American democracies did not join the "War on Terror" actively." without a citation. Numerous American nations have sent forces to Afghanistan aiding the USA under mutual defense. See Afghanistan War wiki for a current list of forces in Afghanistan and those that have served. This line should be removed.

Numerous ?? pls check Multinational force in Iraq. Four central american countries (of 21) is not very representative of latin america --Jor70 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also you used the incorrect word. Latin American nations is what your looking for, not "American". American refers to the U.S. of A. 69.125.249.6 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Status of treaty

Does anybody know if the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance is still effective today or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.221.67 (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Instances in which the treaty was invoked

RE: "In 2001, the United States invoked the Rio Treaty after the September 11 attacks but all Latin American democracies, with the exception of four Central American countries, did not join the "War on Terror" actively.[9]" The footnote says: "Wikipedia List of coalition countries do we need to repeat all sources here?" and it links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

Aside from the un-encyclopedic nature, and the fact that Wikipedia prohibits citing a Wikipedia article, I take exception. The footnote shouldn't point to a list of countries that allied with the US. It should point to why/when/how it invoked the Rio Treaty. BRAZIL (not the US) invoked the Rio Treaty, in response to 9/11

"Secretary Powell was in Lima on the morning of the 11th, and he was most graciously supported by a demonstration of the best in hemispheric diplomacy. The unanimous invocation at the initiative of Brazil and Al Hadena by the 22 signatories to the Rio Treaty on September 19th send an unequivocal and important message to the world that the members of the Organization of American States are united against terrorism as civilized nations. An attack on one is indeed an attack of all." (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa75633.000/hfa75633_0f.htm)

Also: "Brazil was the first to propose invocation of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, also known as the Rio Treaty, which stipulates that “an armed attack on one member is to be considered an attack on all.” The treaty was activated September 19th in a meeting of Western Hemisphere foreign ministers at the Organization of American States. On October 1st Brazilian President Henrique Cardoso stated that the United States had not requested Brazilian military support and that Brazil does not intend to offer any." http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6207.pdf

US did not invoke it. Brazil did. US, of course, appreciated Brazil's solidarity. --Lacarids (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Falklands

RE: "During the Falklands War (Malvinas in Spanish), the United States, who is committed to the Rio Treaty as well as NATO, arguing that Argentina was the aggressor, favoured the United Kingdom, as did Chile and Colombia. This was seen by Latin American countries as the final failure of the treaty.[7][8]"

US was neutral. It did not favor either country. --Lacarids (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing Members

The map, text and sources appear to not match each other. The map shows Cuba as a withdrawn member of the treaty, and the map and text show Ecuador also as a withdrawing member, but the actual OAU |site dedicated to information on the Rio Pact only lists Mexico, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Venezuela as withdrawing from the treaty. Cuba's status seems especially interesting: was its membership in the pact suspended when OAU membership was suspended?Konchevnik81 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So I've been a bit perturbed by this too; I have rephrased the caption to say that the countries in cyan withdrew rather than denounced the treaty, because the latter doesn't convey the full extent of their withdrawal and because Mexico, unlike the ALBA countries, doesn't appear to have actively denounced it. That said, nothing in the article explains Cuba's exit from the treaty (it makes sense that Batista would have signed on and that Castro, facing the united hostility of the US and its allies, withdrew or was expelled, but again, it's not explained in the article). The modification of maps exceeds my Wiki editing skills, alas. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The OAS page shows all the withdrawing members, and Cuba is not one of them. As of today, the members who are effectively withdrawn from the treaty are: Mexico, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia. You can check that here: https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-29.html 2804:14D:72B3:98F9:5C04:729A:6957:BBCC (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Venezuela is officially back into the TIAR

The OAS webpage related to the TIAR has confirmed that in August 6th, the document of approval signed by (I) President Juan Guaidó has been deposited in the OAS HQ in Washington DC. http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-29.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.163.222 (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

the self proclaimed Juan Guaido is not the president of Venezuela, he must argue the inclusion of Venezuela in that treaty in his unsigned comment, which Venezuela - resigned from TIAR on May 14, 2013. The president of Venezuela was elected by Venezuelans! !! and we did it on May 20, 2018 ... Wikipedia must have impartiality in these conflicts until they are clarified! If you wish to include the typical topic you must provide the link as a discussion! --Sychowaves (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The UN do not recognise to guaidó as president. So Venezuela is not a country inside the treaty. https://www.voanews.com/usa/un-chief-rules-out-meeting-venezuelas-guaido-new-york — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.203.13 (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with user (talk), international organizations do not have the power to include member states solely based on reconizing a government of their own. The only international body that accepts governments is the UN. To this end neither is Taiwan or Kosovo recognized as a sovereign state, nor is Guaidó's self proclaimed government able to ratify treaties with international organizations that are legally binding. It would be good to stop trying to pretend otherwise or this will seriously undermine the sincerity of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjam7 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Samjam7: This article is not about UN nor about who is president of Venezuela (for that we have 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis). The OAS is as important as the UN regionally. Most of its members accept Guaidó as president and recognized a Guaidó representative in the OAS. The treaty is not a UN treaty is a OAS treaty. The OAS treaty added Venezuela to the list. You can add more context on how Maduro has denounced the accord, but as far as official sources goes Venezuela is in the TIAR (even if Maduro does not like it). Please add more context to the main text, but we have to add Venezuela in the members list.--MaoGo (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)