Latin America and the teachings of Machiavelli
By
Eduardo Dimas Read Spanish Version
Those
who watched on TV the Rio Group summit, held in the Dominican
Republic, say that on four occasions President Álvaro Uribe of
Colombia walked away from the table "to seek information."
Like
all the presidents in attendance, he was surrounded by aides and
secretaries whose job it is to run errands. Those departures from the
table raised some questions. Some people, the suspicious ones, said
he was getting calls from Washington. Others, the nobler ones, said
he has kidney problems.
Observers
with a sense of humor say that the computer manufacturers are doing
everything possible to learn the brand of laptops Raúl Reyes
was carrying when he was murdered, because of the free publicity
involved. Bombproof and fireproof computers don’t exist, except for
those that are recovered by the Colombian Army.
But
this is only the anecdotic part of a massacre and the violation of a
nation’s sovereignty: Ecuador. Of course, its president, Rafael
Correa, has recently denounced and rebutted the attempts by W. Bush
and other U.S. officials to link his administration to the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
The
same happens with Hugo Chávez and Venezuela. According to what
was "found" in the hard drives of the computers carried by
Raúl Reyes and Iván Ríos, another high-ranking
leader of the FARC killed barely two weeks ago, the secret relations
between Chávez and Correa and that guerrilla organization "are
more than evident."
Under
Secretary of State for Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon described
the evidence as "disturbing" but pointed out that it is
still too early to take any steps. Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice also made some statements. Of course, she said all governments
should do their duty to combat terrorism. The United States should
begin with Miami.
Now
the Miami newspaper El Nuevo Herald has linked two Cubans to the
FARC. One lives and works in Mexico; the other, an eye doctor, lives
in Colombia. Of course, Cuba could not be left unattached from an
organization the United States describes as terrorist.
For
their part, the Republican Congresspeople from Florida, Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen and Connie Mack — with very close links to the U. S.
government and the far-right Cuban-American groups in Miami —
submitted a House resolution to brand the Venezuelan government as "a
state that promotes terrorism."
If
that resolution is approved by Congress, Venezuela would be the
target of sanctions from the White House, which would heat up even
more the relations between the two countries. Have no doubt, that’s
the objective.
For
his part, President Correa on March 14 invited President W. Bush to
shut up or send his soldiers to the border separating Colombia from
Ecuador.
"Bring
your soldiers, Mr. Bush!" Correa said. "Let your soldiers
die on Colombia’s southern frontier. Let us see if the U.S. citizens
will accept such a barbarity. If not, shut your mouth and understand
what’s happening in Latin America." Correa also asked the same
from Spain, in response to a tendencious article that appeared in the
Spanish daily El País.
On
repeated occasions, the Ecuadorean president has denounced the
campaigns of destabilization against his government launched by the
United States and the oligarchy, aimed at overthrowing him and
replacing him with a puppet government that will join the Plan
Colombia and allow the U.S. to retain its air base at Manta.
So,
even though all Latin American and Caribbean nations have expressed
their concern or rejected the violation of Ecuadorean sovereignty and
the massacre that was committed, the U.S. government persists in
backing Uribe and, above all, in creating an opinion that is
favorable to him and contrary to the presidents of Venezuela and
Ecuador.
As
I pointed out in a previous article, the objective is to apply in
Latin America the same principles the U.S. is using in the Middle
East and Europe. In other words, to not recognize the full
sovereignty of other states and to feel entitled to interfere in
other nations’ internal affairs.
Also,
the U.S. reserves the right to combat terrorists wherever they are.
Of course, who is (and who is not) a terrorist is decided by the U.S.
government and its allies, as in the case of FARC, Hamas or
Hezbollah, to name only a few organizations that oppose the policies
and interests of the United States and Israel.
I
was struck by the fact that Correa asked W. Bush to "understand
what’s happening in Latin America." The failure to understand
afflicts not only Bush but also all the politicians who have occupied
the White House. Failure to consider neighbor republics as equal is
an imperial disease. It is the "backyard vision" Bolívar
warned against back in 1826.
In
the case of the current tenant at the White House, the problem is a
lot worse, because he lacks the most basic ethics. Lies are a
substantial part of his political discourse and maybe his private
life too. He is not a congenital liar, but he has no scruples, and
neither do his main advisers and allies. That makes him capable of
any barbarity, as he has already demonstrated.
Things
did not go well for Bush. Correa stood fast, defending Ecuadorean
sovereignty, and Chávez symbolically mobilized 10 battalions
to the Venezuelan border with Colombia. And now that the governments
refused his intervention, Bush has to justify his actions and accuse
both presidents of having close relations with the Colombian
guerrillas.
At
the first meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS)
summoned by Ecuador to denounce the violation of its sovereignty and
the massacre, the United States and its allies managed to prevent the
condemnation of Colombia. The OAS limited itself to "expressing
its concern" about the events.
Later,
at the Rio Group summit, Uribe acknowledged his "mistake,"
asked for forgiveness, shook Correa’s hand, embraced Chávez
and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and promised that a similar
incident would not happen again. Nevertheless, the group’s final
declaration reflected the "rejection" of all member
countries.
However,
Uribe was not condemned and his administration continued to accuse
Chávez and Correa of having relations with the FARC. Although,
to be fair, the strongest accusations are now coming from the U.S.
government. It is part of the script written by the White House or
Uribe’s own initiative to justify an unjustifiable deed?
It
was the OAS’s turn to investigate what happened. A commission
appointed by the group visited the site of the events on March 4 and
collected information from the affected parties to submit it to a
meeting of the foreign ministers of the member countries, held on
March 17.
One
remarkable aspect of the report from the OAS Secretary General, José
Miguel Insulza, is that nowhere does he mention the people killed in
the bombing of the FARC camp.
Of
course, the information is contradictory but not that much. And
because the presidents shook hands, embraced and agreed to
reestablish diplomatic relations, it was difficult for the Colombian
government to be condemned. Ecuador pressed to get the OAS to adopt
in its declaration a text similar to that issued by the Rio Group
summit.
However,
although it was a question of co-signing a statement already approved
by most OAS nations — the same countries as in the Rio Group — both
the U.S. and Colombian delegations, along with some allies, tried to
introduce amendments that delayed the discussion but were rejected by
the majority.
The
OAS declaration rejects the violation of the sovereignty of any
country, Ecuador in this case, by virtue of Articles 19 and 21 of the
OAS charter. In addition, it reiterates the principles of the
inviolability of the sovereignty of the member nations and
noninterference in the internal affairs of other states. It was a
victory for the progressive forces of Latin America.
Actually,
after the accord at the Rio Group summit, nothing more could be
expected. At least for the moment, a confrontation between two Latin
American countries was prevented, a clash that would have allowed the
intervention of U.S. forces on the side of Colombia.
Much
was avoided. The consequences of a war would have been totally
negative for the entire region and beneficial for the United States.
It is good to recall the statement by Niccolo Machiavelli: "Wars
begin by the will of the rulers but cannot be ended at will."
The balance is positive. Let’s not ask any more from the OAS.
