By Ignacio Ramonet
PARIS, Jul 7 2014 (IPS)

In ‘Hard Choices’, her new book about her experiences as Secretary of State during U.S. President Barack Obama’s first term (2008-2012), Hillary Clinton writes something of prime importance about Cuba – she says that late in her term in office she urged Obama to reconsider the U.S. embargo against Cuba.
“It wasn’t achieving its goals, and it was holding back our broader agenda across Latin America.”

Ignacio Ramonet

For the first time a U.S. presidential hopeful has publicly stated that the blockade imposed by Washington on the Caribbean island – for over fifty years! – is “not achieving its goals”.

In other words, the embargo has not subdued this small country in spite of the amount of unjust suffering it has caused for its population.

The essence of Hillary Clinton’s declaration is two-fold: first, it breaks the taboo on saying out loud what everyone in Washington has known for some time: that the blockade is useless.

And second, and more importantly, her statement comes at the moment when her campaign is being launched for the Democratic Party nomination to the White House; that is, she is not afraid that her affirmation – in opposition to all of Washington policies towards Cuba over the past half century – could be a handicap in the electoral battle she faces up until the elections of November 8, 2016.

If Hillary Clinton takes such an unorthodox position, it is because she is aware that public opinion on this topic in the United States has changed, and that the majority today is in favour of ending the blockade.

Indeed, a nationwide poll in February 2014 by the Atlantic Council research institute, found that 56 percent of U.S. respondents favour changing Washington’s policy towards Cuba.

Contrary to hopes that arose after U.S. President Barack Obama was elected in November 2008, Washington’s relations with Cuba have remained on ice. Just after taking office in April 2009, Obama announced at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago that the United States was seeking a “new beginning” in its relationship with Havana.

“Washington’s attitude towards Cuba is still reactionary, typical of the Cold War era which has been over for a quarter of a century. Its archaic stance is in sharp contrast to the position taken by other governments”
But he made only limited, largely symbolic, gestures, permitting Cuban Americans to visit the island and send small amounts of money to their families. Later, in 2011, he adopted further measures but these were still of limited scope: he allowed religious groups and students to travel to Cuba, authorised U.S. airports to handle charter flights to Cuba, and increased the limit on remittances Cuban Americans could send to their relatives. Not much in comparison with the huge disputes that divide the two countries.

One of their differences – the case of ‘the Cuban Five’ – has caused an international commotion. Five Cuban intelligence agents, engaged in the prevention of anti-Cuban terrorism, were detained in Florida in September 1998. They were convicted in a Cold War style political trial – a real courtroom lynching – and sentenced to long prison terms. The injustice of their treatment is clear from the fact that they had committed no acts of violence, nor spied on U.S. security secrets, but had risked their lives to prevent attacks and save human lives.

Washington is inconsistent when it claims to combat “international terrorism” yet continues to back anti-Cuban terrorist groups on its own soil. For instance, in April 2014 the Cuban authorities arrested another group of four people arriving from Florida with intent to commit attacks.

Washington’s attitude towards Cuba is still reactionary, typical of the Cold War era which has been over for a quarter of a century. Its archaic stance is in sharp contrast to the position taken by other governments.

For example, all Latin American and Caribbean states, whatever their political orientations, have recently improved relations with Cuba and denounced the blockade. This was proved in January at the summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) held in Havana.

Washington was snubbed again in May at the general assembly of the Organisation of American States (OAS) in Cochabamba, Bolivia, when Latin American countries, in a fresh show of solidarity with Havana, threatened to boycott the next Summit of the Americas scheduled for 2015 in Panama if Cuba is not invited.

For its part, the European Union decided in February to abandon its so-called “common position” on relations with Cuba, imposed in 1996 by José María Aznar, the then Spanish prime minister, to “punish” Cuba by rejecting all dialogue with the island’s authorities. But the policy proved fruitless and it failed. Brussels has recognised this and has reinstated negotiations with Havana to reach agreement on political and economic cooperation.

The European Union is Cuba’s biggest foreign investor and its second most important trading partner. Reflecting this new spirit, several European ministers have already visited the island.

In contrast with Washington’s immobility, many European foreign ministries are observing with interest the changes President Raúl Castro is promoting in Cuba in the framework of “updating the economic model” and the line taken at the Sixth Congress of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) in 2011, which are highly significant transformations of the economy and society. The recent creation of a special development zone around the port of Mariel, and the approval in March of a new foreign investment law, in particular, have excited great international interest.

The Cuban authorities see no contradiction between socialism and private enterprise. According to some estimates, private enterprise, including foreign investment, could expand to take up 40 percent of the country’s economy, while 60 percent would remain in the hands of the state and the public sector.

The goal is for the Cuban economy to be increasingly compatible with those of its major partners in the region (Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Bolivia) where public and private sectors, the state and markets coexist.

All these changes highlight by contrast the stubbornness of the U.S. Administration, painted into the corner of an ideological position dating from another era, even if, as we have seen, more voices are raised day by day in Washington to acknowledge the error of this position and the need to abandon international isolation in terms of its Cuban policy. Will President Obama listen to them? (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Excerpt:

Cuban diplomacy will be working full blast this year, promoting its own approach to integration in line with the needs and goals of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), a regional body that excludes the United States, Cuba’s leading ideological opponent.

It is precisely this independence from Washington that most attracts Havana to CELAC, whose presidency will be occupied until 2014 by Cuban President Raúl Castro, together with Chilean President Sebastián Piñera and Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla.

By special resolution, this three-pronged presidency will be supplemented by Haitian President Michel Martelly, who also heads the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) this year.

CELAC is a diverse, plural and politically and ideologically tolerant bloc that gathers all the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. Thus the challenge put to member countries even before CELAC’s founding meeting is to tread carefully and find a path of agreement and consensus, with the overall aim of moving forward towards regional integration and growth, striving, in particular, to achieve a socially-just economic development.

“We undertake to work for peace, justice and development for Latin America and the Caribbean, and for cooperation, understanding and solidarity among all Latin American and Caribbean peoples,” Castro said on Monday, upon taking office as CELAC president, but acknowledged that regional unity must be built on the recognition of the region’s diversity.

The 33-country bloc closed its first formal summit on Monday in the Chilean capital of Santiago, and has scheduled its second summit for a year from now, in Cuba.

The Cuban government has been a strong supporter of the regional integration body since the idea for its creation first came up four years ago, at the Latin American and Caribbean Summit on Integration and Development held in Brazil.

That 2008 summit, the first regional meeting of its kind to be organised without engaging the United States and Canada, was followed two years later in 2010 by a similar gathering, this time in Mexico, where participant countries agreed to create CELAC. The bloc was finally founded the following year at a third meeting in Caracas.

Cuba made its preference for a U.S.-free integration known in June 2009 when the United States voted against the Caribbean island’s request to be reinstated as a member of the Organisation of American States, from which it was suspended by consensus in 1962 after embracing Marxism-Leninism.

The Castro administration also stepped up its active involvement in forums that represent the countries of the region, including Caribbean island nations.

“Strengthening, expanding and harmonising these bodies and groups is the path chosen by Cuba; (no longer holding on to) the impossible illusion of returning to an organisation that refuses to reform and has been condemned by history,” Castro said.

Cuba is a founding member of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), of which Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Dominica, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Venezuela are also members. It also has close and active political and cooperation ties with CARICOM.

Cooperation with countries of the South is one of the strengths of Cuba’s foreign policy, a strategy which opens up significant opportunities for Latin America and the Caribbean to implement major projects despite limited resources.

“We all have advantages and experiences that we can contribute,” Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez said shortly before the Santiago summit.

As an example of this, Rodríguez mentioned the assistance provided by his country to Haiti, which focuses particularly on health aid.

Solidarity is, in fact, the principle chosen by Cuba to guide cooperation among the countries of the region, moving away from conditions imposed from outside that have no place in a “new Latin America”, Deputy Foreign Minister Abelardo Moreno added.

While Cuba strengthens its regional environment, expectations that its relations with the United States will improve with the second administration of Democrat Barack Obama are low. Several commentators in the interactive Café 108 feature of the IPS Cuba website agreed that there is little chance that the U.S. will reconsider its relations with Cuba.

In the opinion of political scientist Esteban Morales, the United States is facing a difficult time, both on the domestic and on the international front, and in that context a change in attitude towards its socialist neighbour is highly unlikely. Morales, however, does not rule out the possibility of an indirect route, opened up as a result of the “changes (in U.S. relations) with Latin America and the Caribbean”.

“The last two years (of the Obama administration) may hold the greatest possibilities in this sense, depending on how well Obama does now,” Morales added.

Journalist Roberto Molina, for his part, does not expect to see any change “in the suspended state of relations between the two neighbouring nations, which have been enemies since the early 1960s.”

“Obama has too many pending issues to address – immigration, fiscal reform, a war and other potential conflicts, and a shaky economy – to be thinking of Cuba as a foreign policy priority,” Boris Caro, a Cuban journalist living in Canada, said.

In his last speech of 2012, Castro announced that he will put all his efforts and energy into his role as CELAC president, but he did not forget to remind “the U.S. government once again that Cuba is willing to sit down (with the U.S.) and find a solution to all their bilateral problems in a dialogue based on mutual respect and sovereign equality.”

Chilean President Sebastián Piñera, at the closing ceremony of the CELAC summit. Credit: Marianela Jarroud/IPS

By Marianela Jarroud
SANTIAGO, Chile, Jan 29 2013 (IPS)

Openly conceding the differences in their ideological, economic and geopolitical views, leaders and high-level representatives of the 33 member countries of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) committed themselves to integration at their first ever summit.

CELAC “definitely” empowers the region’s voice in the world, said the executive secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Alicia Bárcena, at the conclusion of the summit in Santiago on Monday.

“I am convinced that this new mechanism is a strong signal, first of all, that Latin America and the Caribbean are no longer what they used to be,” and have experienced “very significant changes”, she said.

Designed in 2010 in Mexico, and created in November 2011 in Caracas, CELAC represents about 600 million people and is the first regional bloc in five decades that leaves out the United States and Canada and includes Cuba.

Rightwing Chilean President Sebastián Piñera said it is “an inclusive (process), because it reaffirms convergence in the same common space, while it has projected itself strongly abroad.”

The host president’s words were along similar lines to those written by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, his complete opposite ideologically, in a letter that was read at the summit. Chávez is convalescing in Havana from his fourth cancer operation, which took place on Dec. 11.

The summit was marked by an air of expectancy about the contents of the letter, read out by Venezuelan Vice President Nicolás Maduro. CELAC “is the most important project of political, economic, cultural and social unity in our contemporary history,” Chávez said.

The presence from afar of the Venezuelan leader, one of the promotors of CELAC together with then presidents Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) of Mexico and Luis Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2011) of Brazil, silently stalked the corridors of the summit and breathed suspense even into the meeting that CELAC leaders held Jan. 25-26 with the European Union.

“We have every right to feel proud: the nation of republics, as Simón Bolívar the Liberator called it, has begun to take shape as a beautiful and happy reality,” he wrote.

Chávez condemned “the shameful imperial blockade of the revolutionary Cuba of Martí (the Cuban independence hero and writer)” and “the continued colonisation and now the progressive militarisation of the Malvinas (Falklands) Islands,” the British overseas territory in the South Atlantic that Argentina claims as its own.

He also called for support for Cuban President Raúl Castro, who took over the temporary presidency of CELAC.

Bárcena said, meanwhile, that countries in Latin America and the Caribbean “are in a better economic situation, are more resilient from the economic point of view, and also from the social point of view, although there are many pending debts.”

She said the region “is well aware of the gaps that need closing internally, and afterwards, if we are more connected, we will be able to relate to foreign countries with greater strength.”

Bárcena said the region has become conscious of the importance of promoting trade between countries.

She added, “If regionalism and integration are dynamised, (production) chains of greater value can be created in the region, and with better articulation, we can (enter into more advantageous) relationships with the Asia-Pacific countries, Europe, or the United States.”

The governments represented at the summit reached convergence on Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas/Falklands Islands, rejection of the U.S. embargo of Cuba, and the need to reduce the enormous inequalities in the region.

But they expressed divergence when it came to debate on foreign investments in the region and on historic geopolitical demands.

Castro said that “transnational corporations, primarily from North America, will not give up control of energy, water and strategic mineral resources that are becoming scarce,” while he stated that his taking over the CELAC presidency was “a recognition of our people’s selfless struggle for independence.”

For his part, Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño called on the Organisation of American States (OAS) to “make reparations to Cuba”, which was suspended from the body in 1962.

When it was the turn of Bolivian President Evo Morales, he insisted on his country’s historic demand for a sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean, which it claims from Chile. Piñera replied, and an extended discussion took place between the two in the forum.

Morales also called on the “brothers” of the insurgent Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC) to come to a peace agreement.

They must “understand that in these times, revolutions are not made by bullets but by voices, in democracy, without violence, with awareness and not by vote-buying,” said Morales, in words that earned him the thanks of Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos.

Bárcena said that the countries of the Americas marching towards unity in diversity is part of the new impetus that CELAC brings. The three realities, made up of the Caribbean and Mexico, Central America and South America, “can dialogue in a much broader and I would say much more pragmatic environment, each with its own model,” she said.

In her view, “there is more convergence than before, and I would say that the guiding principle here is the fight against inequality, because all the countries have realised that inequity conspires against technical progress, security, democracy and, above all, against productivity.”

In contrast, international analyst Raúl Söhr held a more cautious and less optimistic view. He said, “integration does not happen because mechanisms are created, but because there is political will, and when it comes to that there is still great divergence” within the region.

“The mechanisms keep proliferating, with the creation of the Pacific Alliance (Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), CELAC, and the OAS, but at summits like this one, only generic declarations can be made in favour of what is good and against what is bad,” the Chilean expert said.

The second CELAC Summit will be held in 2014 in Havana, at a date yet to be announced.

Chilean President Sebastián Piñera flanked by Herman Van Rompuy (left) and José Durão Barroso. Credit: Marianela Jarroud/IPS

By Marianela Jarroud
SANTIAGO, Jan 29 2013 (IPS)

The nations of Latin America and the Caribbean strengthened their position with respect to Europe at the CELAC-EU summit held this weekend in the Chilean capital, reaching agreements that protect their natural resources from foreign investors and securing a joint condemnation of the United States’ trade embargo against Cuba.

The 33 heads of state and high representatives of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) managed significant amendments in the Declaration of Santiago signed on Sunday Jan. 27 with the 27 member states of the European Union, changing in their favour the key articles that establish the legal framework for foreign investment in the region.

“Legal certainty is the leading issue of contention with the EU, not because the countries of the region are unwilling to provide it, but because each country has its own view and is adopting its own process,” Bolivian Communications Minister Amanda Dávila told IPS.

“The countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) expressed their opinion on sovereignty and voiced their legitimate right to adopt their own policies and to disagree with positions and commitments regarding positions originating in other blocs,” she added.

“We emphasise the importance of working together to promote investments that support the sustainable and sound use of natural resources, environmental care, and economic and social development, and to maintain a favourable investment climate, with legal certainty and respect of national and international law,” according to the revised clause in the declaration.

Dávila said that the final declaration of the CELAC-EU summit is “a huge step forward, an important achievement”, because progress was made on “establishing sovereignty, as the Latin American region has done when it comes to the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands, Cuba and the maritime demand.”

Dávila was referring to the demands made by ALBA — made up of Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela — for the inclusion (in the Santiago Declaration) of Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the disputed South Atlantic islands, the condemnation of the U.S. blockade against Cuba, and Bolivia’s request for a sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean.

The Santiago Declaration further established the “importance of providing legal certainty for economic operators” and made a commitment to “maintain a supportive business environment for investors (…) while recognising the sovereign right of states to regulate.”

Dávila said investors must act accordingly, recognising “the right of countries to regulate in order to meet their national policy objectives in accordance with their international commitments and obligations”, as stated in the declaration.

Concurring with her, the director general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Graziano da Silva, told IPS that the world is used “to treating investment as a private matter, subject to the will of investors, assuming that the country receiving the capital has to yield at all times to the will of the other party.

“But that’s changed,” he said. “A broad agreement must be reached on the issue” in order to ensure that “investments are made responsibly and are, consequently, honoured,” he added.

Trade between CELAC and EU countries grew by an annual average of 13 percent between 2002 and 2011, according to official figures, reaching a total of 276 billion dollars in 2011. In 2012, trade figures were up by 23.9 percent compared with 2011.

As for capital movements between the two regions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported that foreign direct investment (FDI) by the EU in CELAC countries amounted to 613 billion dollars in 2011, representing 47 percent of FDI in the CELAC region, and five percent of the EU’s global investments.

Speaking at a press conference, the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, recalled that the EU remains the largest foreign investor in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In spite of the achievement of ALBA representatives led by Venezuela, the final text of the Santiago Declaration also includes a commitment to “avoid protectionism in all its forms” in order to “favour an open and non-discriminatory, rules-based multilateral trade system”.

Van Rompuy said the EU “anxiously” awaits a trade agreement with the Southern Common Market (Mercosur), made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay (membership currently suspended), Uruguay and Venezuela.

These negotiations have been stalled for years, and their reactivation appears a far-off prospect, given the protectionist measures imposed by Argentina and Brazil as a defence against the economic and financial crisis in the industrialised North, especially in the EU.

However, Van Rompuy said he was optimistic that the bilateral talks would resume soon. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany also called for progress on the negotiations and for an end to protectionism.

The EU announced free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, and an association agreement between the EU and Central America also took shape at the Santiago Summit.

FAO director da Silva stressed that an EU-Mercosur agreement would allow for further integration of the regions’ economies, both in the agricultural sector and in services and industry. He also expressed his desire to “advance and overcome the barriers that prevent this offer from becoming a real and effective agreement”.

The 14-page Santiago Declaration contains over 40 points of agreement, including the commitment of both blocs to multilateralism, respect for indigenous peoples, gender equality and human rights, and rejection of terrorism in all its forms.

The leaders of the two regions undertook to strive for “sustainable development in its three dimensions: economic, social and environmental”, and expressed their concern about the economic crisis, as “recovery remains very slow”.

“We firmly reject all coercive measures of unilateral character with extraterritorial effect that are contrary to international law and the commonly accepted rules of free trade,” the declaration says.

The signatories of the Santiago summit’s final declaration observe that this kind of practice represents a serious threat to multilateralism.

“In this context, and with reference to UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) resolution A/RES/67/4, we reaffirm our well-known positions on the application of the extra-territorial provisions of the Helms-Burton Act,” they state, referring to the U.S. law that exacerbated its embargo against Cuba, the country that will exercise the CELAC’s next temporary presidency.

Guillermo Holzmann, a Chilean political scientist, said that although CELAC did not come to the summit with one voice, as countries within the region have divergent positions, it did constitute a single organisation that today has “a significant opportunity for consolidation”.

In that sense, he told IPS that the region can rightly flex its muscles, because it is part of the solution to the European economic crisis, but no longer as part of “a single relationship of dependency”.

(END)

The European Union’s serious economic and financial crisis stands in stark contrast to the relative stability and decade-long growth enjoyed by Latin America and the Caribbean and could put the two blocs on equal footing, giving the Southern region more leverage to further its demands and economic growth.

From the European Union to Latin America, protestors have taken to the streets against austerity policies. Credit: Nikos Pilos/IPS

The European Union (EU) is set to meet with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) for a bi-regional summit in the Chilean capital of Santiago this Saturday, Jan. 26 and Sunday, Jan. 27.

The meeting will bring together heads of state or high government officials from the 60 countries that make up the two regional blocs, which have a combined population of 1.07 billion and strong cultural, historic and commercial ties.

But the process of forging these commercial ties has not been without its share of difficulties and setbacks, despite the fact that, as the founding documents of CELAC state, “the European Union is the top direct investor in Latin America and the Caribbean, its leading cooperator, and second largest trading partner“.

For Chilean political scientist Esteban Valenzuela, of the Alberto Hurtado University, the bi-regional summit represents an opportunity for Latin America.

“This is probably the ideal time to ask (the EU) to reach a more global understanding and make free trade and agricultural barriers a two-way street that will facilitate investments and allow Latin Americans to invest in their depressed markets,” Hurtado said in an interview with IPS.

It is an opportunity that Latin America must, however, seize “without arrogance”, as the current cycle of high prices of copper, gold, natural gas, oil and other raw materials in the region won’t last forever.

“There are indicators that reveal that China’s economic growth is ‘slowing down’ and that India is facing problems, and these indicators (are a warning sign that) call for enhanced dialogue in the region, (urging it) to seize the opportunity to improve public policies that produce high deficits,” he added.

It could be a turning point for the region’s relations with Europe, but it will only benefit Latin America and the Caribbean if the EU understands that it must treat its counterpart as an equal, Chilean senator Alejandro Navarro, of the left-wing Movimiento Amplio Social (Broad Social Movement), said.

To see this clearly, one need only look at Latin America’s controversial history with the United States, “where our region has traditionally been treated (by the U.S.) as its backyard, and relegated to a minor, supporting role,” he noted.

“Which is why I believe that if Europe understands that it must deal with Latin America on equal terms, it won’t be hard to overcome any problems that may arise in this integration process,” the legislator told IPS.

“With the United States, the possibilities for integration ran their course and bore no fruits. Europe now represents an opportunity that cannot be passed up,” Navarro concluded.

The summit, whose agenda focuses on building and strengthening “a strategic alliance for sustainable development”, is preceded by a meeting of the business sector organised by the head of the Chilean Confederation of Production and Commerce (CPC), Lorenzo Constans, among others.

“At a time of economic and financial uncertainty for Europe, the EU has the possibility of joining forces with Latin America and the Caribbean in a great integration system (…), striving to overcome the challenges posed by development, growth and poverty eradication,” Constans wrote in the official website for the business meeting.

In contrast, Carlos Romero, a Venezuelan political scientist and expert on international affairs, is not so optimistic, as he believes that while relations between the two regions may have “worsened with the crisis that began in 2008, they have been declining for the past ten years.”

“The EU-CELAC summit in Santiago is merely a bureaucratic meeting, of no value (for the region) except for the Southern Cone of South America and, in particular, for the strong economic ties between Brazil and Germany. It’s more like a collective catharsis,” Romero, who is also a university professor, told IPS.

“The timing isn’t the most appropriate, not only because of the difficult situation in the euro zone, but because one of the priorities for Latin America is strengthening its ties with its natural market, which is the United States and Canada, and seeking new markets in the Asia-Pacific region, especially China but also India, Southeast Asia and Australia,” he said.

Brazilian economist Adhemar Mineiro, for his part, observed that it is difficult to imagine a more balanced relationship when “unfortunately the EU has opted for a strategy of further liberalisation and adjustment, which has deepened the crisis not only in Europe but around the world.”

In his view, the summit should be an opportunity for the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean to “harshly criticise this option taken by the European governments”.

It is also a time for the region “to support the struggle of social sectors in Europe that are combating the adjustment policy, which causes unemployment and makes workers foot the bill for the crisis, going as far as dismantling the social protection mechanisms of the so-called welfare state.

“The governments of Latin America should also criticise that option of the European governments, and withhold their markets (including their labour markets) as a solution to those problems,” said Mineiro, who is also an adviser to the Inter Trade Union Department of Statistics and Socio-Economic Studies (DIEESE).

CELAC was created in 2010 in the Mexican tourist district of Riviera Maya, in what the Brazilian Foreign Ministry calls “a historic decision” by the region’s heads of state to establish a new mechanism of political convergence and integration.

According to the Brazilian government, this mechanism will also foster a regional identity for addressing issues of integration and development.

There has been progress in talks with Europe in that sense, as well as some sectoral agreements, like the EU-CELAC Structured Dialogue on Migration, the EU-CELAC Coordination and Cooperation Mechanism on Drugs, and a Joint Initiative for Research and Innovation.

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos announced that his country’s main proposal to the EU-CELAC forum at the Santiago summit would be a declaration calling for the signing of an international treaty within the U.N. system to regulate arms sales.

But as Mineiro pointed out, the EU wishes to emphasise talks on trade and, especially, direct investment.

The European bloc is negotiating separate agreements with Mercosur (the Southern Common Market), made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela, and has strategic alliance treaties with Brazil and Mexico, as well as trade agreements with Colombia and Peru, and economic partnerships with Caribbean countries.

*With additional reporting by Humberto Márquez in Caracas, Marianela Jarroud in Santiago and Constanza Vieira in Colombia.

People in the streets and squares of the Colombian capital are breathing easier. The air is fresh with hope, in contrast to the former leaden and fearful atmosphere of eternal violence and interminable conflict.

Ignacio Ramonet

The war in Colombia is one of the longest-running armed conflicts in the world. It began (or intensified) when Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, an immensely popular social leader who advocated social justice, including financial system reform and land reform, was murdered by the oligarchy on Apr. 9, 1948.

Since then the number of casualties has reached the hundreds of thousands. Today, in a continent that is overwhelmingly at peace, this conflict – Latin America’s last guerrilla war – is like a vestige of another era.

Travelling around the country and talking with diplomats, intellectuals, social workers, journalists, academics or local residents in low-income neighbourhoods, the conclusion that can be drawn is that this time, intentions are serious.

Things have apparently been on the move since President Juan Manuel Santos, in office since August 2010, publicly announced in early September that the government and the insurgents would be starting peace talks, first in Oslo and then in Havana, with the governments of Norway and Cuba as guarantors and of Venezuela and Chile as observers.

Colombians have confidence in the peace process; they feel that internal and external circumstances allow them – prudently – to dream. What if peace were, at last, possible? During the last 65 years of war, it is not the first time that the authorities and the rebels have sat down to negotiate.

Why has President Santos, who was an implacable opponent of the guerrillas as defence minister under former president Álvaro Uribe, chosen the path of negotiation? Because this time, he says, “the stars are aligned to end the conflict.” In other words, the national and international situations could not be more propitious.

In the first place, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are no longer what they used to be. They remain the most formidable guerrilla force in Latin America, with 20,000 combatants. And the FARC is the only guerrilla army that has not been defeated by force of arms in Latin America. But satellite tracking and massive use of drones (unmanned spy planes) now allow their communications and movements to be tracked.

Secondly, the killings of the FARC’s top commanders (by means of the Israeli technique of selective killings) have made it more difficult for the guerrillas to regroup. In addition, some odious combat methods used by the FARC, such as kidnapping, summary execution of prisoners and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, have provoked rejection by a significant part of civil society.

The FARC are far from defeated, and could probably continue the conflict for years. But they are certainly not able to win it; the opportunity for a military victory has vanished. Peace talks, if they lead to a dignified agreement, would let them leave the field walking tall, to join political life.

But when Santos decided, to widespread surprise, to embark on peace negotiations with the insurgents, it was not only because the FARC were weakened militarily. It was also because the landowning oligarchy opposed to land reform (Colombia is practically the only country in Latin America that, because of the landowners’ blinkered attitude, has not redistributed land) were no longer the dominant power.

In the last few decades, a new urban oligarchy has become established, with far more power than the rural elites.

During the worst years of the war, the large cities were cut off from the countryside. It was impossible to travel overland from one place to another, and the portion of Colombia that was usable was limited to a sort of archipelago of cities. To these large cities came the millions of people fleeing the conflict, and dynamic, growing local economies were developed, based on industry, services, finance, import-export and other sectors.

Today, this is the economy that predominates in the country, and is to a certain extent represented by Santos, just as Uribe represents the large landowners who are opposed to the peace process.

The urban oligarchy wants peace for economic reasons. First, the cost of peace – probably a modest land reform – will be borne by the big landowners. The urban elites are not interested in the soil, but in the subsoil: pacification would allow exploitation of Colombia’s immense mineral resources, for which China is an insatiable market.

The urban business community also perceives that, if peace is achieved, the present excessive military expenditure could be devoted to reducing inequality, which continues to be enormous in the country. The entrepreneurs know that Colombia is heading towards a population of 50 million, a significant critical mass in terms of consumption, if average purchasing power rises.

They are aware of the redistribution policies taking place in several Latin American countries (Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and others) that have reactivated domestic production and promoted the growth of local businesses.

Meanwhile, Latin America is experiencing a high point in terms of integration, with the recent creation of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), in which Colombia plays an important role.

Given these dynamics, the war is an anachronism, as Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has often claimed. The FARC know that this is the case. The time has come for both sides to lay down their arms.

Current events in Latin America show that, in spite of the hurdles, gaining power by peaceful, political means is possible for a progressive organisation. This has been proved in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Uruguay and Brazil, among other countries.

Many perils must still be faced. Opponents of peace (Pentagon hawks, ultra-rightwing members of the military, landowners and paramilitaries) will try to sabotage the process. But everything seems to indicate, while negotiations continue in Havana, that the end of the conflict is approaching. At last.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Ignacio Ramonet is the editor of Le Monde Diplomatique in Spanish.