|
Hemispheric Solidarity and Joint Action Against Terrorism The countries of the Americas made clear their position in the OAS resolutions approved on September 21. The OAS member states committed themselves to using all legal means to seek out, capture, extradite and punish all those who collaborated or were involved in the attacks. This reaction was not surprising. Despite recent debate over the continuing relevance of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, or Rio Treaty-adopted in 1947 to ensure collective defense of the region against external attacks-the underlying basis for this statement of hemispheric solidarity is the fact that many countries in the region have themselves been the victims of terrorism. At stake now is the commitment to apply the Rio Treaty during what promises to be a long process that, one way or another, will involve all of the nations in the hemisphere. Some observers insist that joint action against terrorism should not be considered a war, but rather a campaign against crime. As Argentine historian Valiente Noailles points out, the "war" on terrorism is not a war in the traditional sense, for it does not target a specific nation-state, fixed battle field or enemy army. This new type of war will depend on international alliances and the skillful use of diplomatic channels. In this context, what is
the proper course of action for the Americas? Canada has taken a strong stance in addressing terrorism as a problem of human security. During the Thirtieth OAS General Assembly, the Canadian delegation argued that the leading challenge for the hemisphere is developing the political will and capacity to protect individuals from terrorist threats, which it listed among the "transnational causes and effects that have direct implications for personal security." Brazil and Mexico have taken some strides toward leadership in the region on this issue. For example, the Brazilian foreign minister, Celso Lafer, invoked the Rio Treaty in one of the resolutions adopted by the OAS. The Brazilian newspaper O Estado de São Paulo interpreted this action as a diplomatic effort on the part of the Brazilian government to "assert its leadership role in Latin America." In Colombia, the main preoccupation has been that the September 11 attacks will bring increased international pressure to bear on the peace talks to resolve that nation's armed conflict. Political scientist Hernando Gómez Buendía has stated that "the government cannot avoid the worldwide war on terrorism, in this case, against the FARC, ELN and AUC"-Colombia's main guerrilla and paramilitary organizations. Other observers believe that the government's options will be increasingly limited, and that the guerrillas will have to settle on one or another course of action. The issue of human rights will also gain more prominence as more links between the FARC and international terrorist networks come to light. Daniel Zovvato, a journalist at the Colombian news magazine Semana, urges that "the region's total and unconditional support for the people of the United States not be interpreted as a blank check for the Bush administration. Latin America should sustain a frank, respectful and mature dialogue with the US government to make plain its solidarity but, at the same time, put forth its own positions and points of view. Europe has already embarked on this double course, offering moral and political solidarity but opting for prudence when it comes to the use of force." What is ultimately at
stake, Zovvato continues, "is the defense of democracy, freedom and
human rights against global terrorism. Faced with this colossal
challenge, Latin Americans should assume an active role and not be mere
spectators. Let us hope that we are capable of rising to the height of
our responsibilities."
|