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.