|
 |
 |
|
In a “here he comes, there he goes” trip to Colombia, last week President Bill Clinton spent less than 10 hours at the seaside resort of Cartagena de Indias, chosen because, in terms of guerrilla activity, it is considered the safest city in the country and, unlike the traffic-bound capital, Bogota, allowed for the kind of fast in-and-out that was the Secret Service’s goal.
Nevertheles, with Colombian President Andres Pastrana at his side, in his short stay Clinton was successful in forcefully delivering the message that was the reason for his visit: a robust argument in support of a $1.3 billion U.S. aid package as part of Colombia’s ambitious $7.5 billion “Plan Colombia” which combines military efforts and social and economic development to fight drug trafficking and production. The U.S. contribution is mostly for military equipment and training, but Colombia is seeking funds for the other parts of the plan among European nations.
Clinton urged regional leaders to be "strongly supportive" of Colombia's President Pastrana and his efforts to curb drug trafficking and reach peace with rebel groups. But he acknowledged a risk that the aid could cause drug and refugee problems to spill over into neighbouring Latin American countries.
“Let's be candid. If the aid is successful, some of that will happen. But we have funds . . . that can be used to help other countries deal with those problems at the borders right where they start,” said Clinton. “I want to assure other countries; the United States will not abandon you.”
Even as the U.S. president was speaking in Cartagena, 2600 miles to the southeast, in Brasilia, Brazil’s capital, South America’s 12 heads of state were discussing their endorsement of Colombia’s plan, but stopped short of unconditional support for its U.S.-backed military action.. Colombia’s neighbors — Brazil, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela — have shown concerns in recent weeks about the possibility of Colombia’s war pushing drug trafficking, refugees and fleeing rebels onto their territories as the army intensifies the conflict. “Vietnamization” is the word of choice these days among the region’s political leaders.Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez set the tone for the day when he said he was willing to support Plan Colombia “as long as it’s a peace plan.”
And, notwithstanding President Pastrana’s efforts at the Brasilia summit, which he joined as soon as Clinton was on his way home, the four-paragraph statement by the regional leaders praised “courageous measures” taken by President Pastrana but did not mention his plan or any military efforts to end the war between the Colombian army and leftist guerrilla forces, nor offered an alternative solution to beleaguered Colombia, where 25,000 of the country’s 40 million people are murdered each year, and 2,000 to 3,000 kidnapped.
“Many times over the past decades, Colombians have felt alone in bearing the burden of the international drug war,” Pastrana said in his response to Clinton’s speech in Cartagena. “Your presence here today, Mr. President, as a representative of the American people, is a commitment that leads us to know that we're no longer isolated in this struggle.”
In all, this first-ever meeting of the South American presidents, convened by Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, was primarily an attempt to encourage greater economic integration through improved infrastructure, information technology and trade. In a communique, the leaders pledged to begin talks to merge their two trade blocs — Mercosur and the Andean Community — into a continent-wide free-trade zone.
But, in effect, the Brasilia summit was one more example of the “political tourism” which has become fashionable in Latin America, with chiefs of state getting together with the hope that personal socializing will help resolve differences among their nations’ interests and serve to reinforce efforts towards common goals. However, with no serious staff work done before these meetings take place and no organized follow-up after they are over, no results can be expected, and indeed none can be seen.
Latin American media reporting on events such as the Brasilia Summit is generally poor, mostly anecdotical and lacks proper context, leaving the public in the different Latin American countries ignorant of what really transpires in them.
But in either maintaining in the dark or confusing its readers, Clarin, the Buenos Aires daily with a circulation of over half-a-million — double that of it nearest competitor in the region — and heavily influential both in Argentina and in Latin America, has achieved this time a distinction of sorts. Although it sent several of its reporters to cover the Brasilia summit, in its wisdom it chose to run as its lead story on the meeting one by Larry Rother. the New York Times roving correspondent in the area with the byline “from the New York Times – Special for Clarin.” Referenced in context to American readers and badly translated, the piece run by Clarin represents its abdication of its obligation towards its readers.
Claudio Campuzano (claudio-campuzano@hotmail.com) is U.S, correspondent for the Latin American newsweekly Tiempos del Mundo and editorial page editor of the New York daily Noticias del Mundo. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com