RIO SUMMIT: Europe Hesitant to Back Non-Intervention

By Mario Osava Reprint | | Print |

Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 30 1999 (IPS) - European governments showed reticence in supporting the principle of non-intervention in other countries’ affairs as they debated the final declaration of the Latin America and Caribbean – European Union (EU) Summit to be signed Tuesday.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) bombings of Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 10 are an evident obstacle to Europe unconditionally accepting a re-affirmation of the United Nations Charter principle.

The strategic association between the regions participating in the Rio Summit should be based “on full respect of international law,” according to the document’s third item, debated among officials from the 48 countries participating in the summit.

“Non-intervention, respect for sovereignty, legal equality among nations, free determination of the people, peaceful solutions to conflict and prohibition on threatening the use of force” were highlighted in the debate.

“The European side would have preferred not to include specific mentions in the principles, but offered to confer about the issues,” according to an annotation in an earlier draft of the document, to which IPS was given access.

But the text was maintained at the insistence of the Latin American negotiators because it includes a clear reference to the rules of international coexistence, which they believe are an important part of the legal framework regulating political, economic, social and cultural relations between nations.

The war against Yugoslavia, among other U.S.-led armed interventions, has made Latin America and other developing regions the ultimate defenders of the United Nations Charter to ensure self-determination.

Several EU countries, including Britain, Germany, Spain, France and Italy, participated in the attacks against Yugoslavia.

The related issue of the extra-territorial application of national laws continues to be a constant debate in the international arena. The current cases of Cuba and of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet provided the backdrop for this debate at the Rio Summit.

Cuba nearly won the inclusion of a condemnation of the U.S. Helms- Burton Act in the Summit’s final declaration. The U.S. law calls for sanctioning companies that invest in Cuba and attempts to strengthen the trade embargo against the island.

The foreign affairs ministers decided, however, not to mention any specific cases. The declaration includes only a generic condemnation of any unilateral measure with extra-territorial effects.

The Pinochet case had Spain’s foreign affairs minister, Abel Matutes, assuring the press that his government “has not had an occasion to make a political pronouncement” about it.

The former Chilean dictator is under house arrest in London, awaiting extradition measures resulting from accusations of extensive human rights violations made by Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon.

“We are all against the extra-territorial application of laws,” stated Matutes responding to questions about the case, and stressed that it is an issue under consideration by the Spanish courts.

Latin American representatives also attempted to taint the participation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in new international measures for co-operation. NGOs wil not be included in the Summit’s final declaration.

The Latin American negotiators were able to restrict the EU’s broad proposal that underscored “the incorporation in co- operative mechanisms of new actors, partners and resources of civil society to consolidate democracy, economic development and deepen respect for human rights.”

The document restricts co-operation that involves public resources which, according to the declaration, could include NGOs that are “duly registered” and comply with national laws.

The Latin American position is based on the belief that “democracy today in the two regions – the representation of citizens, of civil society – resides in legally constituted political powers,” which “requires dialogue between governments” about co-operation.

A Latin American diplomat participating in the debates explained that one must make a distinction between different types of civil organisations, because some exist for specific ends that are not not public, and may even be linked to large companies.

Other issues, such as the environment and drug-trafficking, also held the attention of the diplomats involved in preparing the Rio Summit’s final documents.

Latin America and the Caribbean representatives were able to contain the European environmental pressures that some believe would create obstacles for economic growth and would prolong poverty among broad sectors of the population.

The Rio Declaration establishes “within the framework of promoting sustainable development, the priority of overcoming poverty, marginality and social exclusion.” The document also places great importance on “modifying the models of production and consumption.”

But the inclusion in the text of the “destruction of forests and soil erosion,” together with the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer, provoked some regionally-based discrepancies.

The drug and drug-trafficking issue drew no controversy in confirming “the principle of common and shared responsibility,” but some Latin American countries wanted greater emphasis on the role played by the demand for drugs, and pushed consumer nations to take more intensive anti-drug action at home.

A follow-up mechanism for the Rio Summit’s resolutions was one of the final questions taken up in preparing the documents for the signatures of delegates of the 33 Latin America and Caribbean countries and the 15 countries of the EU.

The representatives chose to create open and issue-oriented work groups that allow the participation of any interested country.