The landscape after the battle
Summit
of the Rio Group Read Spanish Version
The
landscape after the battle
By
Eduardo Dimas
Much
has been written recently about the outcome of the Rio Group summit,
held in the Dominican Republic on Friday, March 7. And — even more
than about the event — about the solution found by Latin American
and Caribbean leaders to the conflict between Colombia, Ecuador and
Venezuela.
The
summit culminated (oh, diplomacy!) in handshakes, embraces, applause
and smiles, after the presidents of those countries had insulted each
other, broken relations and placed their respective armies on combat
alert. To many observers, that almost-theatrical behavior left an
aftertaste that wasn’t exactly pleasant.
Not
that the accord is negative. President Álvaro Uribe
acknowledged his mistakes, begged the Ecuadorean government for
forgiveness and promised that he would not again violate the
sovereignty of another country in his
war against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
If
anything positive occurred, it’s that no Latin American or Caribbean
government present at the summit supported Uribe’s attitude. It is
simply impossible to accept the violation of another country’s
sovereignty, because that would create a dark precedent for all.
Nevertheless,
some recognized Colombia’s "right" to fight terrorism
anywhere and by any means. Salvadoran President Antonio Saca did so.
Others, in diplomatic speeches, tried to minimize the event but did
not fail to express their concern.
Finally,
in the absence of the U.S. government, which had supported him at the
Organization of American States (OAS) meeting, Uribe had no recourse
but to give in. According to some media, the White House tried to
influence the position of various governments represented at the Rio
Group summit. It failed.
To
accept Colombia’s "right" to fight the FARC on another
nation’s territory would have been to create the same situation that
today exists in the Middle East and the Balkans. It would have been
to establish the conditions for new territorial violations. What’s
worse, it would have permitted certain separatist or autonomous
movements to declare their independence in the not-too-distant
future, same as happened in Kosovo.
There’s
no connection, some might say. But there is. I would remind you of
certain steps taken in the now-forgotten past. In March 1991, after
the Gulf War and the disappearance of the socialist camp, President
Bush Sr. announced the emergence of "a new world order"
under the domination of the United States.
In
1992, then-Secretary General of the United Nations Butros Butros
Ghali set forth his "Agenda for Peace," which established
the principle of "limited sovereignty" of the states, and
the "right of interference" in the internal affairs of the
states, in the event of danger to peace in a region or worldwide.
Later
on, another principle, promoted by the United States and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), appeared: the principle of
"humanitarian intervention," which, after the attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001, became "preventive war," applied by Bush
Jr. in Afghnistan and Iraq.
I
think that those precedents weighed on the position of the Latin
American leaders at the Rio Group summit.
After
learning how Raúl Reyes and his companions were killed on
Ecuador’s sovereign territory, President Hugo Chávez ordered
the mobilization of several battalions to Venezuela’s border with
Colombia. President Rafael Correa of Ecuador did the same.
That
was because the precedent of the war against Yugoslavia in 1999 and
the aggression against Iraq have had very dangerous international
consequences. The war against Yugoslavia supposedly was a
"humanitarian intervention" to prevent the genocide of the
Albanian Kosovars.
That
intervention culminated (at least for now) with the unilateral
independence of Kosovo, on Feb. 17, which was immediately recognized
by the United States and several European countries. That step
violates Resolution 1242 of the U.N. Security Council. Kosovo has
been part of Serbia since the 7th Century.
The
war in Iraq was a "preventive war" to keep Saddam Hussein
from using the weapons of mass destruction he did NOT have. Now, one
of the plans to achieve control of the country is to divide it in
three.
In
fact, the northern part of Iraq, controlled by the Kurds, is
practically independent. The central region (with a Sunni majority)
and the southern region (with a Shiite majority) will later be
separated, so the country may be split — under U.S. occupation.
Following
the same pattern — empires generally follow the plans that have
worked in the past — any Latin American country could be invaded
tomorrow in the name of "humanitarian intervention" or
"preventive war."
I
am thinking about Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. Also about Cuba,
which has been the target of many campaigns that would paint it as a
danger to U.S. national security. But all those campaigns have
failed.
The
plans of the United States and the oligarchy to separate the
so-called Half Moon (Santa Cruz, Tarija, Pando and Beni) from the
rest of Bolivia, to separate Guayaquil from Ecuador and split Zulia
from Venezuela could begin from a "humanitarian intervention"
or a "preventive war" based on the "right to
interference" and "limited sovereignty."
Another
aspect of the recent events is highly remarkable. From the very first
moment, the Colombian government, which violated Ecuador’s
sovereignty and committed a massacre, was supported by the White
House.
President
W. Bush, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and even the candidates to
the presidency from the two parties justified the action of the
Colombian government and its "right" to combat terrorism
anywhere. In no case did they mention the violation of Ecuador’s
sovereignty, perhaps because it is not convenient to criticize or
condemn someone who imitates us.
There
were even statements by U.S. government spokesmen that referred only
to the mobilization of troops ordered by President Chávez and
to the danger such an act represented, because it might provoke a
conflict with Colombia.
No
mention of Ecuador was made in those statements, and nothing was said
about the fact that Colombia has 270,000 soldiers constantly on
alert. Chávez had mobilized about 6,000 soldiers to cover a
border that extends for 2,200 kilometers. The objective was evident:
to focus everyone’s attention on Venezuela and to lessen the
importance of what happened in Ecuador.
Fortunately,
the Latin American governments did not agree to become part of a game
that led to a confrontation between Colombia and Venezuela. That
seems to have been one of the principal objectives of the campaign
orchestrated following the violation of Ecuador’s sovereignty.
If
that confrontation ever comes to pass, the United States would have a
pretext to intervene in support of the Colombian government, which
could lead to a major war whose human and material cost is impossible
to calculate. Such an action may seem madness, but — given the
personal characteristics of the current U.S. president and his
closest advisers — it cannot be ruled out.
The
White House’s failure, therefore, is threefold. First, it was unable
to turn Colombia into Latin America’s policeman, in the style of
Israel. Second, it was unable to convince the Latin American nations
(not even its closest allies) to support a plan that in time would
trample on everyone’s sovereignty.
Third,
it was unable to prepare the conditions for an eventual attack on
Venezuela through Colombia, which would have given the coup
de grâce to
the process of integration in Latin America and would have created a
situation of total instability.
The
balance of the Rio Group summit in the Dominican Republic is
positive. Nevertheless, it failed to halt the United States’ policy
to destroy the Bolivarian Revolution and the processes of social
justice taking place in Ecuador and Bolivia.
And,
given the nature of the Uribe government, we cannot rule out that he
will leap into new adventures. Still, his prestige among the other
Latin American leaders has been badly damaged. The "bomb-proof"
computer that allegedly was taken from Raúl Reyes, was not all
that compromising. It is difficult to lie as he did and later to ask
for credibility.
I
don’t know if he acted on his own or under White House directions.
The latter appears to be closer to the truth. In the process, he
allowed the prestige of statesmen like Rafael Correa, Hugo Chávez
and Daniel Ortega to grow, mainly Correa’s.
The
Rio Group summit managed to prevent a conflict between two brother
nations. It managed to do what the OAS couldn’t — to ease tensions.
And it permitted all the Latin American governments to unite on a
subject of vital importance — the territorial integrity of nations
and respect for sovereignty.
We
now await the results of the international commission that will
investigate the events. Neither at the OAS meeting or the Dominican
summit was the Colombian government condemned. I don’t think it will
be condemned in the future. However, its action and the lies Uribe
uttered to justify it had a political cost that cannot be recovered.
Being
the principal ally of the United States takes a toll. Particularly in
dignity and prestige.
