Latin America and the Teachings of Machiavelli

[magbana]

Latin America and the teachings of Machiavelli PDF Print E-mail

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.

http://progreso-weekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=403&Itemid=1

[Judi Lynn]

1. Interesting. I really like El Progreso. Admire Fracisco Aruca so much, and the contributors are

beyond reproach.

I appreciate the comments by Eduardo Dimas.

Hope the right-wing will never be able to run such a dirty operation on decent people again. They're using up all the last of any good will they will ever see from the world.

[gbscar]

2. As if everything else in the camp had been engulfed by flames...

It's just great to hear such weak arguments once in a time...

"Bombproof and fireproof computers don't exist, except for those that are recovered by the Colombian Army."

As if everything else in the camp was equally bombed or had been engulfed by flames...err, not really. Lots of things actually survived in rather good condition. According to the Ecuadorian authorities themselves.

But I guess that doesn't matter to some people. Carry on. No PCs exists, it's just a conspiracy between Colombia and the Interpol, a mere U.S. puppet.